[workshop-sim] Repair: Fix CHECKPOINT_RE regex to match :white_check_mark: shortcode so checkpoint_quality is scored correctly

已关闭 适合新手
  • 哪里不对？
#4,174 0 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
2/5
预计耗时
1-3 小时
新手友好度
84/100
Issue 类型
缺陷
描述清晰度
描述清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
python
领域
testing-qa, tooling

调研方向

从 .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py 开始，检查 CHECKPOINT_RE 及其评估流程。针对 workshop/ 目录运行评估，为 ✅ 添加或更新评估脚本测试套件的覆盖率，并验证全部 30 个步骤都能在没有回归的情况下重新计算，同时保持 workshop/ 内容不变。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

feedback simulation workshop

Problem statement

The shared curriculum quantitative assessment script (.github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py) detects checkpoints using CHECKPOINT_RE = re.compile(r"##\s+✅\s*Checkpoint", re.IGNORECASE), which only matches a literal ✅ Unicode character. Every workshop step actually uses the GitHub Markdown emoji shortcode ## :white_check_mark: Checkpoint (per repository convention documented in .github/workflows/guidelines.md). As a result, has_checkpoint evaluates False and checkpoint_quality scores 0.0 for all 30 main workshop steps, even though every step has a well-formed checkpoint section with checklist items. This silently depresses overall_score and the Learning KPI index for every step in the curriculum, masking real signal about which steps actually need checkpoint improvements.

Proposed change

Update CHECKPOINT_RE to also match the :white_check_mark: shortcode form, e.g.:

CHECKPOINT_RE = re.compile(r"##\s+(?:✅|:white_check_mark:)\s*Checkpoint", re.IGNORECASE)

Re-run the assessment script against the full workshop/ directory and confirm checkpoint_quality scores now reflect each step's actual checklist quality (checklist item count, presence of recovery/troubleshooting guidance, etc.) rather than a uniform 0.0.

Failure mode classification

Learning barrier (measurement defect) — this is not a learner-facing instructional gap; it is a rubric detection bug that misrepresents real instructional quality. Fixing it corrects the Learning KPI index measurement itself rather than changing any workshop content.

Quantitative guardrail

Current cohort-wide impact:

  • checkpoint_quality mean across all 30 steps: 0.0/10 (should reflect real variation once fixed)
  • Cohort-wide Learning KPI index: 2.88/10 — abnormally low because 2.0× weight is applied to a dimension that is uniformly zero
  • Example step 07d-confirm-model-access.md: overall_score 6.25/10, learning KPI index currently 3.65/10 using the incorrect checkpoint_quality=0.0

This change should raise checkpoint_quality (and therefore overall_score and the Learning KPI index) for every step whose checkpoint section already has real content — it must not be used as a pretext to avoid separately improving steps whose checkpoints are genuinely weak (e.g., steps lacking any recovery guidance, per the companion 04-github-actions-intro.md issue).

Acceptance criteria

  • The shared curriculum quantitative assessment overall_score stays flat or improves for every step after the regex fix (no step should regress)
  • The Learning KPI index (2.0 × active_learning + 2.0 × checkpoint_quality + 1.5 × scaffolding) / 5.5 is recomputed for all 30 steps and the cohort mean rises to reflect real checkpoint quality, no longer uniformly suppressed by the detection bug
  • Existing checkpoint checklists, hands-on practice, and scaffolding content are left unchanged — this issue only touches the measurement script, not workshop content
  • Unit test added/updated in the assessment script's test suite covering the :white_check_mark: shortcode form

Suggested owner

copilot coding agent (contained, mechanical regex fix with clear acceptance criteria)
Related to #4172

Generated by 🔬 Workshop Student Simulator · copilot · auto · 223.6 AIC · ⌖ 20.5 AIC · ⊞ 15.1K · ◷

  • expires on Oct 5, 2026, 7:37 AM UTC
主要语言
JavaScript
星标
56
派生
40
平均合并
2 天 14 小时
30 天内合并 PR
13

环境准备

在 Codespaces 中打开

在浏览器里用你自己的 GitHub 账号启动这个项目的开发容器。

  • 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 没有贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

githubnext/gh-aw-workshop 的其他 Issue

查看 githubnext/gh-aw-workshop 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 JavaScript Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。