chore: update docs/key features & add ds_store to gitignore#125
chore: update docs/key features & add ds_store to gitignore#125asamal4 merged 2 commits intolightspeed-core:mainfrom
Conversation
WalkthroughAdded Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Suggested reviewers
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md (1)
3-3: Optional: Minor date formatting suggestion.Static analysis flagged that some style guides recommend a comma after the year in month-day-year dates (e.g.,
December 23, 2025,). This is purely stylistic and does not affect clarity.If you'd like to align with this style convention, you could update the date lines to:
**Last Updated:** December 23, 2025,This is entirely optional and has no impact on functionality or readability.
Also applies to: 1637-1637
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.gitignoreREADME.mddocs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (10)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:140-145
Timestamp: 2025-09-11T12:47:06.747Z
Learning: User asamal4 prefers that non-critical comments are sent when actual code changes are pushed, not on unrelated commits.
📚 Learning: 2025-08-26T11:17:48.640Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 28
File: lsc_eval/runner.py:99-103
Timestamp: 2025-08-26T11:17:48.640Z
Learning: The lsc_eval generic evaluation tool is intended to become the primary evaluation framework, replacing an existing evaluation tool in the lightspeed-evaluation repository.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Applies to src/lightspeed_evaluation/**/*.py : Use Google-style docstrings for all public APIs
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-10T15:52:09.426Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:110-119
Timestamp: 2025-09-10T15:52:09.426Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation framework, asamal4 prefers to avoid over-engineering when the current Pydantic-based architecture already handles the use case adequately. They plan incremental improvements for future modularization rather than premature abstraction.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Applies to src/lightspeed_evaluation/**/*.py : Provide type hints for all public functions and methods
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-19T00:37:23.798Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 55
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/pipeline/evaluation/errors.py:33-36
Timestamp: 2025-09-19T00:37:23.798Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation codebase, metric resolution (including applying defaults when turn_metrics is None) happens upstream in ConversationProcessor.process_conversation() using MetricManager.resolve_metrics(), not in the EvaluationErrorHandler. The error handler only marks explicitly defined metrics as ERROR.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use "FAIL" for evaluations that ran but didn't pass the criteria, and "ERROR" for errors in the evaluation process itself (like setup script failures, API errors, etc.).
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.mdREADME.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use distinct values: "FAIL" means the evaluation ran successfully but the result was negative, while "ERROR" means there was an issue executing the evaluation itself (e.g., setup script failed, API connection failed).
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.mdREADME.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:21:53.225Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:190-214
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:21:53.225Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval framework, there's a distinction between FAIL and ERROR results:
- FAIL: evaluation failed (e.g., script verification failed, agent response doesn't match expected criteria) - result.error is None
- ERROR: error running eval (e.g., setup script failed, agent API error) - result.error contains error message
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-08T11:11:54.516Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: config/system.yaml:78-82
Timestamp: 2025-09-08T11:11:54.516Z
Learning: For the custom:tool_eval metric, when threshold is not specified (None), the system defaults to checking if score > 0, providing less strict evaluation logic compared to exact matching. This allows for more flexible tool call evaluation where partial correctness is acceptable.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
[style] ~3-~3: Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date.
Context: ...e Guide Last Updated: December 23, 2025 Assisted by: AI to generate the d...
(MISSING_COMMA_AFTER_YEAR)
[style] ~1637-~1637: Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date.
Context: ...ed --- Last Updated: December 23, 2025 Status: Complete and Ready for Us...
(MISSING_COMMA_AFTER_YEAR)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
- GitHub Check: tests (3.13)
- GitHub Check: tests (3.12)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.gitignore (1)
1-2: LGTM!Adding .DS_Store exclusion is a standard and correct practice for cross-platform Python projects. The placement and comment header follow existing conventions in the file.
README.md (1)
328-329: Clear and consistent documentation update.The addition of SKIPPED status aligns with the expanded evaluation guide and accurately reflects the new output semantics.
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md (1)
827-827: Comprehensive and consistent SKIPPED status documentation.The guide thoroughly documents the new SKIPPED status as an evaluation outcome:
- Step 4 (Scoring & Analysis) correctly identifies SKIPPED as a possible status
- CSV output section clarifies that SKIPPED appears in the status field
- Status interpretation section provides clear explanation of when SKIPPED occurs (prior failures when
skip_on_failureis enabled)This aligns well with the semantic distinction in your learnings between FAIL (evaluation ran but failed the threshold) and SKIPPED (evaluation was not executed due to prior failure).
Also applies to: 858-858, 913-914
asamal4
force-pushed
the
pre-rel-cleanup-v030
branch
from
d6ac50b to
cdf234d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md (1)
3-3: Minor style suggestion: Date formatting.Lines 3 and 1637 use the format "December 23, 2025" without a trailing comma. Some style guides (e.g., AP, Chicago) recommend "December 23, 2025," (with a comma after the year) in month-day-year format. This is optional and applies consistently throughout the document, so feel free to defer if not following a specific style guide.
Also applies to: 1637-1637
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.gitignoreREADME.mddocs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .gitignore
- README.md
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (10)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:140-145
Timestamp: 2025-09-11T12:47:06.747Z
Learning: User asamal4 prefers that non-critical comments are sent when actual code changes are pushed, not on unrelated commits.
📚 Learning: 2025-08-26T11:17:48.640Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 28
File: lsc_eval/runner.py:99-103
Timestamp: 2025-08-26T11:17:48.640Z
Learning: The lsc_eval generic evaluation tool is intended to become the primary evaluation framework, replacing an existing evaluation tool in the lightspeed-evaluation repository.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Applies to src/lightspeed_evaluation/**/*.py : Use Google-style docstrings for all public APIs
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-10T15:52:09.426Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:110-119
Timestamp: 2025-09-10T15:52:09.426Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation framework, asamal4 prefers to avoid over-engineering when the current Pydantic-based architecture already handles the use case adequately. They plan incremental improvements for future modularization rather than premature abstraction.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Applies to src/lightspeed_evaluation/**/*.py : Provide type hints for all public functions and methods
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-19T00:37:23.798Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 55
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/pipeline/evaluation/errors.py:33-36
Timestamp: 2025-09-19T00:37:23.798Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation codebase, metric resolution (including applying defaults when turn_metrics is None) happens upstream in ConversationProcessor.process_conversation() using MetricManager.resolve_metrics(), not in the EvaluationErrorHandler. The error handler only marks explicitly defined metrics as ERROR.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use "FAIL" for evaluations that ran but didn't pass the criteria, and "ERROR" for errors in the evaluation process itself (like setup script failures, API errors, etc.).
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use distinct values: "FAIL" means the evaluation ran successfully but the result was negative, while "ERROR" means there was an issue executing the evaluation itself (e.g., setup script failed, API connection failed).
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:21:53.225Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:190-214
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:21:53.225Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval framework, there's a distinction between FAIL and ERROR results:
- FAIL: evaluation failed (e.g., script verification failed, agent response doesn't match expected criteria) - result.error is None
- ERROR: error running eval (e.g., setup script failed, agent API error) - result.error contains error message
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-08T11:11:54.516Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: config/system.yaml:78-82
Timestamp: 2025-09-08T11:11:54.516Z
Learning: For the custom:tool_eval metric, when threshold is not specified (None), the system defaults to checking if score > 0, providing less strict evaluation logic compared to exact matching. This allows for more flexible tool call evaluation where partial correctness is acceptable.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
[style] ~3-~3: Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date.
Context: ...e Guide Last Updated: December 23, 2025 Assisted by: AI to generate the d...
(MISSING_COMMA_AFTER_YEAR)
[style] ~1637-~1637: Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date.
Context: ...ed --- Last Updated: December 23, 2025 Status: Complete and Ready for Us...
(MISSING_COMMA_AFTER_YEAR)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
- GitHub Check: tests (3.13)
- GitHub Check: tests (3.12)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md (6)
772-786: Clear and practical skip_on_failure documentation.The new "Skip on Failure Example" section effectively explains the feature with a concrete YAML example. The explanation of conditional skipping behavior is clear and aligns with the PR objective to document the SKIPPED status.
908-914: SKIPPED status well integrated into status interpretation section.The expanded status definitions (lines 908–914) clearly distinguish SKIPPED from ERROR and explain the condition that triggers it (
skip_on_failureenabled). This addition is essential and aligns with the broader documentation updates in the guide.
855-861: Status enumerations consistently updated throughout outputs section.Line 858 and surrounding context properly reflect the four-status model (PASS/FAIL/ERROR/SKIPPED) in the CSV output description, maintaining consistency with earlier sections.
825-829: Status enumeration correctly updated in workflow section.Line 827 properly reflects the expanded status model in the evaluation workflow description, maintaining consistency across all documentation sections.
1637-1638: Document maturity status helpfully added.The new "Status: Complete and Ready for Use" line (1638) provides helpful metadata signaling document completeness and aligns well with the last-updated timestamp and overall guide quality.
608-608: No issues found. The Python version constraint documented at line 608 (Python 3.11 - 3.13) accurately reflects the project's configuration inpyproject.toml(requires-python = ">=3.11,<3.14"). The change from the open-ended3.11+to an explicit upper bound is appropriate and correct.
asamal4
force-pushed
the
pre-rel-cleanup-v030
branch
from
cdf234d to
6433bb3
Compare
asamal4
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
README.md (1)
1-384: Update the PR description to document the scope and rationale for these changes.All features claimed in the README are properly implemented in the codebase and the documentation is consistent across files. Cross-file verification confirms that
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.mdandREADME.mdalign on key concepts like SKIPPED status semantics, Python version requirements (3.11-3.13), and all six major features (token tracking, statistics, concurrency, caching, SKIPPED status, GEval custom metrics).The PR body is currently empty. Add a brief summary explaining what documentation was added, updated, or clarified and why these changes were made.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
README.md
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (4)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Update docs/, README.md, and AGENTS.md when modifying functionality or adding new features
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:140-145
Timestamp: 2025-09-11T12:47:06.747Z
Learning: User asamal4 prefers that non-critical comments are sent when actual code changes are pushed, not on unrelated commits.
📚 Learning: 2025-09-18T23:59:37.026Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 55
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/system/validator.py:146-155
Timestamp: 2025-09-18T23:59:37.026Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation project, the DataValidator in `src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/system/validator.py` is intentionally designed to validate only explicitly provided user evaluation data, not resolved metrics that include system defaults. When turn_metrics is None, the system falls back to system config defaults, and this validation separation is by design.
Applied to files:
README.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use distinct values: "FAIL" means the evaluation ran successfully but the result was negative, while "ERROR" means there was an issue executing the evaluation itself (e.g., setup script failed, API connection failed).
Applied to files:
README.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use "FAIL" for evaluations that ran but didn't pass the criteria, and "ERROR" for errors in the evaluation process itself (like setup script failures, API errors, etc.).
Applied to files:
README.md
🔇 Additional comments (4)
README.md (4)
15-22: Verify documentation claims match actual feature implementations.The new features listed (Token Usage Tracking, Statistical Analysis, Concurrent Evaluation, Caching) should be verified against the actual codebase implementation to ensure they exist and behave as documented.
Additionally, line 22's "Skip on Failure" explanation mixes two distinct behaviors (conditional skipping and error-state handling) in a single sentence—consider clarifying the boundary between them.
Can you verify that:
- All six new features (lines 15–22) are fully implemented and working as described?
- The SKIPPED status is properly propagated through the evaluation pipeline when skip-on-failure triggers?
- Caching covers all three scopes mentioned (LLM, embedding, API response)?
Proposed clarification for line 22:
🔎 Suggested rewording for clarity
- **Skip on Failure**: Optionally skip remaining evaluations in a conversation when a turn evaluation fails (configurable globally or per conversation). When there is an error in API call/Setup script execution metrics are marked as ERROR always. + **Skip on Failure**: Optionally skip remaining evaluations in a conversation when a turn evaluation fails (configurable globally or per conversation). API errors and setup script failures are always marked as ERROR regardless of skip settings.
120-141: Verify GEval examples exist in referenced system config.The new GEval section claims example metrics
geval:technical_accuracyandgeval:conversation_coherenceexist inconfig/system.yaml. Confirm:
- These examples are present in the referenced file
- The YAML structure (criteria, evaluation_params, evaluation_steps, threshold, description) matches what the system actually parses
- The
evaluation_paramslist shown is complete or if there are other supported parameters
354-355: Verify SKIPPED status appears in actual evaluation outputs.The Key Metrics section now documents SKIPPED as a possible status value. Confirm that all output formats (CSV, JSON, TXT, PNG visualizations) properly support and display this status without breaking existing parsing or visualization code.
378-383: Verify troubleshooting links point to correct config locations.Confirm that the link to
config/system.yaml#L16correctly references themax_tokensparameter. Also verify that.caches/is the actual cache directory path used by the system and that no other critical troubleshooting items are missing.
asamal4
force-pushed
the
pre-rel-cleanup-v030
branch
from
0f2b75d to
a20a08d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md (1)
3-3: Minor: Add commas after year in dates (optional style preference).Per style guides like Chicago Manual of Style, month-day-year dates should include a comma after the year. Consider updating to:
December 23, 2025,Also applies to: 1637-1637
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.gitignoreREADME.mddocs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .gitignore
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (12)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:140-145
Timestamp: 2025-09-11T12:47:06.747Z
Learning: User asamal4 prefers that non-critical comments are sent when actual code changes are pushed, not on unrelated commits.
📚 Learning: 2025-08-26T11:17:48.640Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 28
File: lsc_eval/runner.py:99-103
Timestamp: 2025-08-26T11:17:48.640Z
Learning: The lsc_eval generic evaluation tool is intended to become the primary evaluation framework, replacing an existing evaluation tool in the lightspeed-evaluation repository.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Applies to src/lightspeed_evaluation/**/*.py : Use Google-style docstrings for all public APIs
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-10T15:52:09.426Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/output/generator.py:110-119
Timestamp: 2025-09-10T15:52:09.426Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation framework, asamal4 prefers to avoid over-engineering when the current Pydantic-based architecture already handles the use case adequately. They plan incremental improvements for future modularization rather than premature abstraction.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Applies to src/lightspeed_evaluation/**/*.py : Provide type hints for all public functions and methods
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-19T00:37:23.798Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 55
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/pipeline/evaluation/errors.py:33-36
Timestamp: 2025-09-19T00:37:23.798Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation codebase, metric resolution (including applying defaults when turn_metrics is None) happens upstream in ConversationProcessor.process_conversation() using MetricManager.resolve_metrics(), not in the EvaluationErrorHandler. The error handler only marks explicitly defined metrics as ERROR.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:40.632Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use "FAIL" for evaluations that ran but didn't pass the criteria, and "ERROR" for errors in the evaluation process itself (like setup script failures, API errors, etc.).
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.mdREADME.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:20:45.006Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval package, evaluation results use distinct values: "FAIL" means the evaluation ran successfully but the result was negative, while "ERROR" means there was an issue executing the evaluation itself (e.g., setup script failed, API connection failed).
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.mdREADME.md
📚 Learning: 2025-07-16T13:21:53.225Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 19
File: lsc_agent_eval/tests/core/agent_goal_eval/test_evaluator.py:190-214
Timestamp: 2025-07-16T13:21:53.225Z
Learning: In the lsc_agent_eval framework, there's a distinction between FAIL and ERROR results:
- FAIL: evaluation failed (e.g., script verification failed, agent response doesn't match expected criteria) - result.error is None
- ERROR: error running eval (e.g., setup script failed, agent API error) - result.error contains error message
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-08T11:11:54.516Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 47
File: config/system.yaml:78-82
Timestamp: 2025-09-08T11:11:54.516Z
Learning: For the custom:tool_eval metric, when threshold is not specified (None), the system defaults to checking if score > 0, providing less strict evaluation logic compared to exact matching. This allows for more flexible tool call evaluation where partial correctness is acceptable.
Applied to files:
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
📚 Learning: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learnt from: CR
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-11T10:05:06.422Z
Learning: Update docs/, README.md, and AGENTS.md when modifying functionality or adding new features
Applied to files:
README.md
📚 Learning: 2025-09-18T23:59:37.026Z
Learnt from: asamal4
Repo: lightspeed-core/lightspeed-evaluation PR: 55
File: src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/system/validator.py:146-155
Timestamp: 2025-09-18T23:59:37.026Z
Learning: In the lightspeed-evaluation project, the DataValidator in `src/lightspeed_evaluation/core/system/validator.py` is intentionally designed to validate only explicitly provided user evaluation data, not resolved metrics that include system defaults. When turn_metrics is None, the system falls back to system config defaults, and this validation separation is by design.
Applied to files:
README.md
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md
[style] ~3-~3: Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date.
Context: ...e Guide Last Updated: December 23, 2025 Assisted by: AI to generate the d...
(MISSING_COMMA_AFTER_YEAR)
[style] ~1637-~1637: Some style guides suggest that commas should set off the year in a month-day-year date.
Context: ...ed --- Last Updated: December 23, 2025 Status: Complete and Ready for Us...
(MISSING_COMMA_AFTER_YEAR)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: tests (3.13)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md (2)
608-608: Verify Python 3.13 support and 3.14+ compatibility intent.The Python version constraint was tightened from "3.11+" to "3.11 - 3.13". Confirm that:
- Python 3.13 is tested and verified in CI
- Python 3.14+ is intentionally excluded (vs. not yet tested)
This helps prevent future user frustration if they use a newer Python version.
827-827: SKIPPED status integration looks good.The new SKIPPED status is consistently documented across scoring workflow, CSV output structure, and status interpretation. The description aligns well with the skip_on_failure feature mentioned in the README. No issues detected.
Also applies to: 858-858, 913-913
README.md (2)
15-22: New key features clearly documented.The expanded features (token tracking, statistical analysis, concurrent evaluation, caching, skip on failure) are well-described with actionable detail. The additional clarification on line 22 about error handling when
skip_on_failureis enabled provides helpful context.
354-355: Status field update is consistent.The addition of SKIPPED to the output status list aligns well with the skip_on_failure feature and the updated docs/EVALUATION_GUIDE.md documentation. No issues.
1 participant
Description
Type of change
Tools used to create PR
Identify any AI code assistants used in this PR (for transparency and review context)
Related Tickets & Documents
Checklist before requesting a review
Testing
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Chores
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.