Repository navigation
1.1: JSON rubrics, built-in ticket-quality rubric and issue mappers - #2
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…pplicability, caps, grades, classifications - IssueText: port of Yoda's section reader, criteria headings and placeholder test. - Rules: EvaluationContext with cached text and named conditions; measures and conditions. - TieredAssessment: first matching tier scores, with findings and recommendations. - AppliesWhen on assessments and categories; not-applicable work is left out of scores. - Category weights; score caps; grade bands; classifications; overall verdict on results. - Assessment outcome and recommendation on results. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…rs (Jira REST/ADF, GitHub, ServiceNow) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…'s engine
Parity with PanoramicData.Skills IssueQualityCore.ps1, checked field by field (score,
grade, findings in order, recommendations, flags, automation type, mandatory caps and
every factor score): 75/75 of Yoda's own test fixtures (one differs only because that
test temporarily changes two weights) and 320/320 real Jira tickets (MS bugs, epics,
stories and tasks, PS tickets, change requests), through both Yoda's conversion and
JiraIssueMapper.
Engine additions the port needed: {$.path~pattern} and {measure:text} placeholders,
placeholders in not-applicable explanations, empty findings for recommend-only tiers,
and NormalizedIssue.Platform.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… generated code from coverage Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…lines) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Up to standards ✅🟢 Issues
|
| Metric | Results |
|---|---|
| Complexity | 516 |
| Duplication | 2 |
🟢 Coverage 100.00% diff coverage · +0.00% coverage variation
Metric Results Coverage variation ✅ +0.00% coverage variation (-1.00%) Diff coverage ✅ 100.00% diff coverage Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage Common ancestor commit (f5c8a2e) 1138 1138 100.00% Head commit (b309f35) 1954 (+816) 1954 (+816) 100.00% (+0.00%) Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch:
<coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage Pull request (#2) 885 885 100.00% Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified:
<covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%
AI Reviewer: run a review on demand. To trigger the first review automatically, go to your organization or repository integration settings. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds rubrics so Yoda's skills and the QA Dashboard can share one definition of ticket quality.
What's new
AssessmentRubric: whole configurations as JSON, validated at construction.TieredAssessment, conditions and measures over text sources that can narrow to a headed section (Jira wiki or Markdown).AppliesWhen,NotApplicableoutcome, renormalised scores), category weights, score caps, grade bands, classifications and flags, reported asIAssessmentResult.Overall.AssessmentReport(flat, serializable).BuiltInRubrics.PanoramicDataTicketQuality.NormalizedIssuewith Jira (v2 and v3/ADF), GitHub and ServiceNow mappers, plusIssueTexthelpers.Everything is additive: 1.0 code compiles and behaves as before.
Parity
The built-in rubric matches
IssueQualityCore.ps1on score, grade, findings, recommendations, flags and automation type:Quality
🤖 Generated with Claude Code