[workshop-sim] Workshop Simulation Report — 2026-11-09 (Run #187, 1000×Monte Carlo)

Đã đóng
  • Có gì không ổn?
#5,520 0 bình luận 0 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Maintainer thường phản hồi trong vòng 1 ngày

Chưa có ai nhận issue này.

Đánh giá

Độ khó
4/5
Thời gian dự kiến
3-5 ngày
Mức phù hợp với người mới
35/100
Loại issue
Tính năng
Độ rõ ràng
Khá rõ ràng
Mức độ hoạt động
Sôi nổi
Công nghệ
github-actions, markdown
Lĩnh vực
content, documentation

Hướng nghiên cứu

The report names 04-github-actions-intro.md, 05-agentic-workflows-intro.md, 07-your-first-workflow.md, 07d-confirm-model-access.md, and 08-run-your-workflow.md as priority areas. Read these workshop lessons and their checkpoints first, then compare them with the reported dropout causes and learning scores. Done means applying the prioritized repairs: inline the billing decision and verification in Step 7d, add predict-then-verify exercises to Steps 4 and 5, and add pre-flight checks to Step 8 while maintaining or improving the learning KPI.

Do mô hình lập chỉ mục viết ra từ nội dung của issue.

Mô tả

feedback simulation workshop
Overview
  • Date: 2026-11-09
  • Students simulated: 46 × 1000 Monte Carlo runs
  • Workshop steps available: 31/31
  • Overall success rate: 23.5% (95% Monte Carlo interval: 23.1%–23.9%)
  • Highest-dropout step: 07-first-workflow (21.8% conditional dropout among 22,478 at-risk runs; 95% Monte Carlo interval: 21.3%–22.3%)
  • Lowest curriculum quality step: 04-github-actions-intro.md (overall score 5.39/10)
  • Learning KPI index: 2.9/10 (active_learning 4.15 · checkpoint_quality 0.00 · scaffolding 5.00)
  • Model: 2026-07-survival-model-v2 / 2026-07-assumption-model-v2 (parameter hash 2024391902)
  • Limitation: synthetic results reflect explicit model assumptions; intervals exclude model and population-assumption uncertainty
Part Summary
Part Files Mean Score Std Dev
Part 1 — core path (lessons 00–14) 15 6.69 / 10.0 ±1.74
Part 2 — advanced (lessons 15+) 16 6.04 / 10.0 ±0.36
Overall corpus 31 6.35 / 10.0 —
Critical Findings
  1. Step 7 (Part 1) is the top blocker: 21.8% conditional dropout, mostly copilot-access-missing (3,793 of 4,901 failures). It combines the heaviest terminal and auth demand with billing choice deferred to a side quest.
  2. Concept pages 04/05/05b/05c (Part 1) lose 10–18% each, driven by concept overload and agentic concept gaps. These are learning barriers, and 04 and 05 have the lowest active_learning (3.9, 2.4).
  3. Learning quality is weak: checkpoint_quality is 0.0 on every main step, so the KPI index is 2.9/10. Learners who stay get practice but little verifiable feedback.
  4. Beginners (0.4%) and UI-preferring learners (11.8% vs 34.3%) almost never finish. The most important repair belongs to Part 1 (00–14).
  5. Step 8 pre-flight checks cover compile and publish state (the baseline shows 100% workflow-not-compiled for Step 8, which the Step 7 evaluations resolve). Step 8's checkpoint has no pre-flight item.
Top Repairs to Prioritize

Note: some dropout is expected. Repairs must maintain or improve the learning KPI index.

  1. Move the billing-path decision into Step 7d inline, with a verify-it-worked check (completion ↑ · learning KPI ↑)
  2. Add checkpoint quality and a predict-then-verify exercise to the Step 4 and 5 concept pages (completion ↑ · learning KPI ↑)
  3. Add pre-flight verification items to the Step 8 checkpoint (completion ↑ · learning KPI ↑)
Dropout by step
Step At-risk runs Dropouts Rate 95% interval Mode Top reason
07-first-workflow 22,478 4,901 21.8% 21.3%–22.3% access barrier Copilot model access missing
05-agentic-intro 36,969 6,566 17.8% 17.4%–18.2% learning barrier Agentic concept gap
04-actions-intro 44,151 7,182 16.3% 15.9%–16.6% learning barrier Concept overload
05c-agentic-practice 30,403 3,803 12.5% 12.1%–12.9% learning barrier Agentic classification gap
05b-agentic-security 26,600 2,615 9.8% 9.5%–10.2% learning barrier Agentic security gap
06-install-gh-aw 23,985 1,507 6.3% 6.0%–6.6% access barrier Extension install friction
Curriculum quality and learning KPIs
Step file Overall active_learning checkpoint_quality scaffolding KPI index Lowest dim Priority
04-github-actions-intro.md 5.39 3.9 0.0 5.0 2.69 checkpoint_quality High
05-agentic-workflows-intro.md 5.43 2.4 0.0 5.0 2.30 checkpoint_quality High
07-your-first-workflow.md 6.25 6.3 0.0 5.0 3.67 checkpoint_quality High
07d-confirm-model-access.md 6.25 6.3 0.0 5.0 3.67 checkpoint_quality High
08-run-your-workflow.md 5.67 3.0 0.0 5.0 2.43 checkpoint_quality Medium
Cohort mean 6.35 4.15 0.00 5.00 2.87 checkpoint_quality —
Segment breakdowns
Level n Success
beginner 11 0.4%
github-basic 19 15.9%
actions-user 11 47.7%
advanced 5 50.2%
Personality n Success
impatient 6 27.1%
methodical 12 25.6%
skeptical 7 24.1%
confused 6 22.5%
curious 15 20.6%

UI preferred: true (22) 11.8% · false (24) 34.3%.

Notable student journeys (3)
  • Best success: Learner 026 (advanced, devops, confused, CLI) reaches only 63%, and her most common failure is Step 7 despite the strongest profile. This shows that Step 7's access and billing friction hits experts too.
  • Unexpected dropout: Learner 043 (github-basic program manager, CCA, UI-preferring) fails at 04-actions-intro in every run, before any terminal step. This is concept overload, not tooling.
  • Content gap: Learner 038 (beginner, no-coding, methodical) fails at Step 4 every run. Step 4 has 28 new concepts and a 0.0 checkpoint score.

Agent insights were written for 08-run-your-workflow, 07-first-workflow, and 05-agentic-intro, and the simulator was rerun. All three show matching content hashes and semantic scores. Profiles were updated (+1000 runs each).

Generated by 🔬 Workshop Student Simulator · copilot · auto · ~36 AIC · ⌖ ~1 AIC · ⊞ 15.4K · ◷

  • expires on Nov 10, 2026, 9:04 AM UTC
Ngôn ngữ chính
JavaScript
Star
58
Fork
40
Merge trung bình
1 ngày 22 giờ
Pull request đã merge (30 ngày)
7

Chuẩn bị môi trường

Mở trong Codespaces

Khởi chạy dev container của dự án ngay trên trình duyệt, bằng tài khoản GitHub của bạn.

  • Không có Dockerfile hay tệp Docker Compose
  • Không có mẫu pull request
  • Không có hướng dẫn đóng góp

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Issue khác của githubnext/gh-aw-workshop

Tất cả issue của githubnext/gh-aw-workshop

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về JavaScript

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.