Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

[curriculum-eval] curriculum_assessment.py: checkpoint_quality/scaffolding — rubric regex misses `:white_check_mark:` and `:clipboard:` headings

Closed Beginner friendly
  • Is something wrong?
#4,743 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
2/5
Estimated time
1-3 hours
Newbie friendliness
75/100
Issue type
Bug
Clarity
Clearly specified
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
javascript, python
Domain
content, testing

Research direction

Start with .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py and inspect CHECKPOINT_RE and the has_prereq_section regexes. Add unit tests for the emoji and shortcode heading forms named in the issue, then rerun the assessment. Done means checkpoint coverage is about 86/93 and scaffolding scores near 10 for most pages, without editing workshop files.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

curriculum documentation quality

File: workshop/(all lessons; rubric at .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py)
Overall Score: 6.09 / 10.0 (corpus mean: 6.09)

Flagged Dimensions:

Dimension Score Benchmark Delta
checkpoint_quality 0.0 for 90/93 files ≥ 10 (≥ 4 items) −10.0
scaffolding 5.0 for 93/93 files 10 −5.0

Root Cause (≤ 2 sentences):
CHECKPOINT_RE matches only ## ✅ Checkpoint and the prerequisites check only ## 📋 Before You Start, but the workshop uses ## :white_check_mark: Checkpoint and ## :clipboard: Before You Start (e.g. 86 of 93 files have a checkpoint). The scorer therefore reports false zeros, which also explains the −2.00 drops for side-quest-11-09-agent-session-phases.md and side-quest-12-01-iterate-agent-output.md.

Evidence (quoted from the file):

✅ Checkpoint (workshop/side-quest-11-06-anthropic-key.md, line 109) — scored has_checkpoint: false

Learning Science Rationale:
Valid measurement is a precondition for any improvement loop: Bloom-aligned assessment and cognitive-load tuning require instruments that reflect the content. A rubric with systematic false negatives misdirects effort and hides the real, smaller gaps (7 files truly lack checkpoints, Mayer's signalling principle for learners relies on them).

Improvement Prompt (for an agent):

In .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py, update CHECKPOINT_RE to match `## ✅ Checkpoint` and `## :white_check_mark: Checkpoint`, and update the has_prereq_section regexes to match `## 📋 Before You Start` and `## :clipboard: Before You Start` as well as `## Prerequisites`. Add unit tests for each heading form, rerun the assessment, and confirm checkpoint coverage reports ~86/93 and scaffolding ~10 for most pages. Do not edit workshop files.

Expected Score After Fix: ≈ 8.2 corpus mean / 10.0

Generated by 🔬 Curriculum Quality Evaluator · copilot · auto · 32.3 AIC · ⌖ 0.79 AIC · ⊞ 10.5K · ◷

  • expires on Oct 20, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC
Dominant language
JavaScript
Stars
53
Forks
35
Avg merge
1d 6h
Merged PRs (30d)
15

Getting set up

Open in Codespaces

Starts the project's dev container in your browser, under your own GitHub account.

  • No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
  • No pull request template
  • No contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from githubnext/gh-aw-workshop

All issues in githubnext/gh-aw-workshop

Similar issues

More JavaScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.