Generalized Agents: Automated Quality Dashboard
Real-time insights into Auto-QC and Auto-Reviewer execution results
🚀📊 Auto-QC Dashboard: This interactive dashboard shows all Auto-QC and Auto-Reviewer execution runs triggered from GitHub workflows and on-demand requests via the self-service tool. Search, filter, sort, and analyze your automated quality data with real-time insights. View individual records or group by time periods to track trends and patterns.
📊 Current Sheet: Auto-Reviewer
E2E
Auto-Reviewer
🔄 Show Distinct Records Only (Remove Duplicate Runs)
Convert from "all individual runs" to "distinct records" by keeping only the latest run per unique key
🎯 Use Case: Show latest status per unique key, removing duplicate runs and retries.
🔄 Sort by Timestamp (Optional)
Sort data by timestamp column - works for individual runs, deduplication, and grouping views
⏰ Use Case: Sort data chronologically - newest first (default) or oldest first.
📊 Time-based Grouping (Optional)
📈 Use Case: Group data by time periods to analyze trends and patterns.
📋 Individual Runs View: Each row represents a separate Auto-QC or Auto-Reviewer execution run
📊 Showing 20027
individual runs
| run_id | sample_id | colab_url | colab_name | repo_url | branch | colab_path | check_trigger | author | api_version | check_id | check_version | changed_on | commit_id | check_status | [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs | [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions | [GA] No Duplicate Assertions | [GA] Realistic Implementation Data | [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions | [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised | [GA] Correct Assertion Message | [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions | [GA] Spell Check & Grammar | [GA] Variables Check | [GA] Query and Action Alignment | [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code | [GA] FC2 Compatible Action | [GA] Hardcoded Assertions | [GA] Sample Ambiguity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2ac30f01-ca67-4248-a332-c6441beb2850 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/User_Simulation_-_MT/373_base_US_ToolShift/Agent-373_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | Agent-373_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/User_Simulation_-_MT/373_base_US_ToolShift/Agent-373_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | gh-action | muhammadf1-ui | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 12:35:29 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/9104a398451b9f1ec29b5d147d8538e0ed5fef78 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - expected_num_slack_files = 4 - Comment/Issue: - The assertion relies on a hardcoded constant `expected_num_slack_files = 4` - This value is an assumption about the initial state of the simulation environment that is not specified in the Query or Case Description - This makes the assertion brittle, as it will fail if the initial number of files in the simulation environment changes for any reason. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of hardcoding the expected number of files, calculate it dynamically from the simulation environment at the start of the assertion block, similar to how `expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels` is calculated - For example: `expected_num_slack_files = len((slack.list_files() or {}).get("files", []))` - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - _channels_resp = slack.list_channels() - _channels = _channels_resp.get("channels", []) if _channels_resp.get("ok") else [] - expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels = sum( - len((slack.get_conversation_history(channel=c.get("id")) or {}).get("messages", [])) - for c in _channels if c.get("id") - ) - expected_num_slack_files = len((slack.list_files() or {}).get("files", [])) - Comment/Issue: - The assertion to check that no new Slack messages or files were sent is logically flawed - It calculates the 'expected' counts (the initial state) within the Final Assertion block, which runs after the agent's actions - This means it compares the final state against itself, making the assertion ineffective as it will always pass regardless of the agent's behavior - The comment `# This should ideally be stored during IA, but we'll fetch fresh here` explicitly acknowledges this flawed approach. - Suggested Fixes: - The initial counts for Slack messages and files should be determined and stored during the Initial Assertion block - These stored values should then be passed to or accessed by the Final Assertion block to perform a correct comparison against the final state. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - # 1) Assert that NO new messages/files were sent across Slack channels (by checking expected counts) - num_slack_messages = 0 - try: - channels_response = slack.list_channels() - if channels_response.get('ok'): - for channel in channels_response.get('channels', []): - channel_id = channel.get('id') - if channel_id: - history_response = slack.get_conversation_history(channel=channel_id) - if history_response.get('ok'): - num_messages = len(history_response.get('messages', [])) - num_slack_messages += num_messages - except Exception as e: - api_error = str(e) - assert (num_slack_messages == expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels) and (len(slack.list_files().get('files',[])) == expected_num_slack_files), ( - f"Assertion 1 Failed: Expected total Slack messages across all channels and/or number of files in Slack are not aligned with expected counts." - ) - Comment/Issue: - The final assertion block contains a check to verify the total number of Slack messages and files - This exact same logic, including the calculation of expected and actual counts, is already present in the initial assertion block (Block 15) - The purpose is to ensure no new messages or files were created, which is a valid final state check - However, the implementation is a direct repetition of the initial assertion's logic rather than a comparison against the initial state - This makes the check redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of recalculating the expected number of messages and files and re-running the same check from the initial assertion, the initial counts should be stored in variables - The final assertion can then fetch the current counts and compare them against the stored initial values to verify that they haven't changed. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert (num_slack_messages == expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels) and (len(slack.list_files().get('files',[])) == expected_num_slack_files), ( - f"Assertion 3 Failed: Expected total Slack messages across all channels and/or number of files in Slack are not aligned with expected counts." - ) - Comment/Issue: - The assertion compares `num_slack_messages` with `expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels` - However, both variables are calculated using the exact same logic on the same database state within the same code block - The assertion is effectively checking if a value is equal to itself (`f(db_state) == f(db_state)`), which will always be true and does not validate any meaningful precondition of the database. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should compare the calculated number of messages against a known, hardcoded expected value for the initial state, rather than comparing a calculation against itself. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert (num_slack_messages == expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels) and (len(slack.list_files().get('files',[])) == expected_num_slack_files), ( - f"Assertion 1 Failed: Expected total Slack messages across all channels and/or number of files in Slack are not aligned with expected counts." - ) - Comment/Issue: - The assertion compares the current number of Slack messages and files with expected counts - However, these expected counts (`expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels` and `expected_num_slack_files`) are calculated from the current state of the database within this same block, *after* the action has been performed - The assertion then recalculates the same values and compares them, effectively asserting that a value is equal to itself - This does not check if the state has changed correctly from the initial state; it only confirms that the calculation is consistent with itself, making the assertion redundant and ineffective at validating the action's outcome. - Suggested Fixes: - To validate that no new messages or files were added, the initial counts from the 'Initial Assertion' block should be stored or passed to this block and compared against the final counts calculated here. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - expected_num_slack_messages_across_channels = sum( - len((slack.get_conversation_history(channel=c.get("id")) or {}).get("messages", [])) - for c in _channels if c.get("id") - ) - Comment/Issue: - The `slack.get_conversation_history` API call is made outside of a `try...except` block - According to its documentation, this function can raise several errors such as `ChannelNotFoundError`, `TypeError`, and `ValueError` - If any of these errors occur, the script will terminate with an exception that is not an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - expected_num_slack_files = len((slack.list_files() or {}).get("files", [])) - Comment/Issue: - The `slack.list_files()` API call is made outside of a `try...except` block - According to its documentation, this function can raise several errors, including `TypeError`, `ValueError`, and `ChannelNotFoundError` - If any of these errors occur, the script will terminate with an unhandled exception that is not an `AssertionError` - The preceding lines that call `slack.list_channels()` and `slack.get_conversation_history()` have the same vulnerability. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - (len(slack.list_files().get('files',[])) == expected_num_slack_files) - Comment/Issue: - The `slack.list_files()` API call is made directly within the condition of an `assert` statement, but it is not protected by the `try...except` block that covers the message counting logic above it - According to its documentation, `slack.list_files()` can raise several errors (e.g., `TypeError`, `ValueError`, `ChannelNotFoundError`) - If an error occurs, it will not be an `AssertionError`, thus violating the guideline. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - I want to send this document to the slack channel (Follow Up Request) - Comment/Issue: - The word 'slack' is a proper noun referring to the 'Slack' application and should be capitalized. - Suggested Fixes: - I want to send this document to the Slack channel (Follow Up Request) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action markdown - Issue Around: - I want to create a Confluence page Q3 Briefing for it instead using the exact content of Q3 Launch Brief document. - Comment/Issue: - The page title 'Q3 Briefing' and document title 'Q3 Launch Brief document' should be enclosed in quotes for clarity and to distinguish them as specific entities, which is a common convention for titles. - Suggested Fixes: - I want to create a Confluence page "Q3 Briefing" for it instead using the exact content of the "Q3 Launch Brief" document. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - import gdrive - Comment/Issue: - The `gdrive` library is re-imported in this action block, but it was already imported during the database initialization phase (Block 12) - This re-import is unnecessary and adds no value, as the module is already available in the current execution environment - Such redundant imports should be removed to improve code conciseness. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant `import gdrive` statement - The library is already imported and available for use. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - import slack - Comment/Issue: - The `slack` library is re-imported in this action block - It was previously imported during the database initialization (Block 12) and is already loaded into the namespace - This re-import is functionally redundant and should be omitted. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant `import slack` statement - The library is already imported and available for use. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - import google_docs - import confluence - Comment/Issue: - The `google_docs` and `confluence` libraries are re-imported here - Both were already imported in the database initialization step (Block 12) and are available in the current scope - This repetition is unnecessary and should be removed for cleaner code. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant import statements for `google_docs` and `confluence` - These libraries are already imported and available for use. - Verdict: failed | |||||||||
| 2622ab31-01c8-4774-a456-3838753b0908 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following/Targeted_ID_59_IF/Targeted_ID_59.ipynb | Targeted_ID_59.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following/Targeted_ID_59_IF/Targeted_ID_59.ipynb | gh-action | samuelm-star | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 12:10:11 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/2455fa94552d19cfc77b58e0b5eda0799cf251c3 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - app_name = bundle.get("localized_app_name") or bundle.get("app") or "" - Comment/Issue: - The code attempts to access the key 'app' from a notification bundle dictionary - However, the API documentation for `notifications.get_notifications` does not list 'app' as a valid key in the returned `bundled_message_notifications` objects - The valid keys are `key`, `localized_app_name`, `app_package_name`, `sender`, etc. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the access to the undocumented key 'app' - You should rely on 'localized_app_name' or 'app_package_name' as documented. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - app_name = (bundle.get("app_localized_app_namename") or bundle.get("app_package_name") or "").lower() - Comment/Issue: - The code attempts to access the key 'app_localized_app_namename' from a notification bundle dictionary - This key is not defined in the API documentation for the `notifications.get_notifications` return value - It appears to be a typo of the valid key 'localized_app_name'. - Suggested Fixes: - Correct the typo from 'app_localized_app_namename' to the documented key 'localized_app_name'. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - app_name = (bundle.get("app_localized_app_namename") or bundle.get("app_package_name") or "").lower() - Comment/Issue: - The code contains a typo in a dictionary key lookup. 'app_localized_app_namename' is used, but it should likely be 'app_localized_app_name' - This is a spelling mistake within the code. - Suggested Fixes: - app_name = (bundle.get("localized_app_name") or bundle.get("app_package_name") or "").lower() - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Debug: print sender + app for each bundle - for i, bundle in enumerate(bundled_notifications, start=1): - sender = (bundle.get("sender") or {}).get("name") - app_name = bundle.get("localized_app_name") or bundle.get("app") or "" - print(f"{i}. sender={sender!r}, localized_app_name={app_name!r}") - # Step 2: Filter for WhatsApp notifications from Jeremy - jeremy_bundle = None - for bundle in bundled_notifications: - sender = bundle.get("sender") or {} - sender_name = (sender.get("name") or "").lower() - app_name = (bundle.get("app_localized_app_namename") or bundle.get("app_package_name") or "").lower() - if "jeremy" in sender_name and "whatsapp" in app_name: - jeremy_bundle = bundle - break - Comment/Issue: - The code iterates through the `bundled_notifications` list twice - The first loop is for debugging and printing information about each notification bundle, while the second loop iterates through the same list again to filter for a specific notification from 'Jeremy' - These two loops can be combined into a single iteration to improve efficiency and reduce code duplication. - Suggested Fixes: - Combine the two loops into a single loop - The debugging print statement from the first loop can be moved inside the second (filtering) loop, so the list is only iterated over once. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||||||
| f5dcac87-c576-41e0-aef6-060c40cd0062 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following_-_Phase_2/5879_base_GC_IF/5879_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | 5879_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following_-_Phase_2/5879_base_GC_IF/5879_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | gh-action | chandrakanthb-cmyk | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 12:03:53 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/0b6dcab967f63e73ae70d5d83d236ed7a1e05a3e | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - # --- Construct expected message --- - expected_message_parts = [] - if expiring_licenses: - expected_message_parts.append('Hi team, \n\n The following software licenses are expiring in the next 30 days:\n\n') - for license_info in expiring_licenses: - expected_message_parts.append(f"- License: {license_info['license_name']}\n") - expected_message_parts.append(f"- Expiration Date: {license_info['expiration_date']}\n") - expected_message_parts.append(f"- Assigned User: {license_info['assigned_user']}\n\n") - expected_message_content = "".join(expected_message_parts).strip() - # 2️⃣ Assert message contains expected content - assert compare_is_string_subset(expected_message_content, posted_message), ( - f"The posted message does not contain the expected information for all expiring licenses.\n" - f"Expected subset: '{expected_message_content}'\n" - f"Actual message: '{posted_message}'" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The assertion constructs an 'expected_message_content' string with a hardcoded format, including an introductory sentence ('Hi team...'), specific prefixes ('- License: '), and multiple newline characters ('\n\n') - The query only asks to 'compile' the license information and 'post a message,' without specifying this rigid format - This makes the assertion brittle, as a valid tool output that presents the correct information in a different format would fail the test. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of building a single, rigidly formatted string, the assertion should check for the presence of the required data points individually - Iterate through the `expiring_licenses` list and for each license, assert that its name, expiration date, and assigned user are all substrings of the `posted_message` - This would validate the content without enforcing a strict format. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - headers = sheet_data[0] - required_columns = ['license_name', 'expiration_date', 'assigned_user'] - missing_columns = [col for col in required_columns if col not in headers] - assert not missing_columns, f"Missing required columns in sheet: {missing_columns}" - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block (Block 13) already verifies that the spreadsheet contains the required columns ('license_name', 'expiration_date', 'assigned_user') - The final assertion block repeats this exact same check before proceeding to validate the content of the message - This re-assertion of an unchanged prerequisite is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the assertion that checks for the existence of required columns in the final assertion block, as this is already validated in the initial setup. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert not missing_columns, f"Missing required columns in sheet: {missing_columns}" - Comment/Issue: - The presence and correctness of the sheet's headers are part of the initial state, which is already validated in the Initial Assertions block (Block 13) - The action performed by the agent (reading a sheet and posting to Slack) is not expected to modify the headers of the sheet - Therefore, re-asserting the header structure in the Final Assertions block is redundant and unnecessary - The final assertions should focus on verifying the outcome of the action, not re-validating the initial setup. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this assertion, as it checks for a condition that was already verified in the initial state and is not expected to change as a result of the agent's action. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - missing_columns = [col for col in required_columns if col not in headers] - assert not missing_columns, f"Missing required columns in sheet: {missing_columns}" - Comment/Issue: - The code checks if all items in the `required_columns` list are present in the `headers` list - This is a list subset check where all elements of one list must be present in another - The utility function `compare_is_list_subset` with `list_comparison_function='all'` is designed for this exact purpose and should have been used instead of the list comprehension with the `in` operator. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace the custom list comprehension check with the provided utility function: ```python from Scripts.assertions_utils import compare_is_list_subset # ... inside the code ... headers = sheet_data[0] required_columns = ['license_name', 'expiration_date', 'assigned_user'] assert compare_is_list_subset(required_columns, headers, list_comparison_function="all"), f"Missing required columns in sheet." ``` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - initiate - Comment/Issue: - The word 'initiate' in the block name appears to be a typo or an incorrect word choice. 'Initialize' is the standard term for setting up initial states or values in a programming context. - Suggested Fixes: - initialize - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Fetching engineer team channel id. - Comment/Issue: - There is a spelling mistake in the code comment. 'engineer' should be spelled 'engineering'. - Suggested Fixes: - # Fetching engineering team channel ID. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Get spreadsheet details from spreadsheet id. - Comment/Issue: - The code comment uses 'id' in lowercase - For better readability and adherence to common technical writing standards, abbreviations like 'ID' should be capitalized. - Suggested Fixes: - # Get spreadsheet details from spreadsheet ID. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # first row are headers - Comment/Issue: - The comment 'first row are headers' is grammatically incorrect - A more grammatically correct and clearer version would be 'The first row contains the headers' or 'First row is headers'. - Suggested Fixes: - # The first row contains the headers - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - engineering-team - Comment/Issue: - The text uses 'engineering-team' with a hyphen, which is inconsistent with the rest of the notebook where 'engineering team' is used with a space - Consistency is important for clarity. - Suggested Fixes: - engineering team - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - whose `expiration_date` falls within the next `30 days` , the `license_name` - Comment/Issue: - There is a misplaced comma before 'the `license_name`', which makes the sentence grammatically awkward. - Suggested Fixes: - whose `expiration_date` falls within the next `30 days`, the message includes the `license_name` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - spreadsheet_id = user_files['files'][0]['id'] - spreadsheet_id - Comment/Issue: - The code in this block is redundant - The variable `spreadsheet_id` was already retrieved and assigned in a previous block (Block 16) - This block unnecessarily repeats the same assignment from the same source variable (`user_files`), adding no new information or functionality to the process. - Suggested Fixes: - This block is redundant and should be removed - The spreadsheet ID was already obtained in Block 16. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - spreadsheet_id = user_files['files'][0]['id'] - Comment/Issue: - The code in this block repeats the logic from a previous block (Block 16) to find and assign the `spreadsheet_id` - Block 16 already performs `user_files = gdrive.list_user_files(...)` and then assigns `spreadsheet_id` from the result - This block then re-executes `spreadsheet_id = user_files['files'][0]['id']`, which is an unnecessary and redundant operation, as the variable was already correctly assigned. - Suggested Fixes: - This entire code block can be safely removed as the `spreadsheet_id` variable is already assigned in Block 16. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - google_sheets.get_spreadsheet_values(spreadsheet_id=spreadsheet_id, range=f'{sheet_title}!A:C') - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code assumes that the required columns ('license_name', 'expiration_date', 'assigned_user') are located in the first three columns (A:C) of the sheet - The case description only states that the sheet contains 'at least' these columns but does not specify their positions or order. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of assuming a fixed range, the code should first read the header row to find the column indices of the required fields and then fetch the data accordingly, or fetch the entire sheet data and then process it based on the header. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - expected_message_parts.append('Hi team, \n\n The following software licenses are expiring in the next 30 days:\n\n') - for license_info in expiring_licenses: - expected_message_parts.append(f"- License: {license_info['license_name']}\n") - expected_message_parts.append(f"- Expiration Date: {license_info['expiration_date']}\n") - expected_message_parts.append(f"- Assigned User: {license_info['assigned_user']}\n\n") - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code constructs an expected message with a specific format and text (e.g., 'Hi team, \n\n The following software licenses are expiring...', '- License: ...', '- Expiration Date: ...') - This exact wording and structure are not specified in the query or case description, making it a hardcoded assumption about the output. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should only check for the presence of the required data points (license name, expiration date, assigned user) within the posted message, without enforcing a strict, hardcoded template. - Verdict: failed | |||||||
| eb417c59-1d7b-4e04-b5c1-d87b6336a733 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Cursor/Cursor_1649_base/Agent-1649_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-1649_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Cursor/Cursor_1649_base/Agent-1649_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | kiskoa-turing | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:43:37 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/3854548e50f6d00df720a776ac86818c8a3be525 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - click_defs = cursor.grep_search( - query=CLICK_DEF, - include_pattern=f"*/{projects[0]['name']}/{PKG_NAME}/{MOUSE_FILE}", - case_sensitive=False, - explanation="Find click() definition" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The assertions rely on a hardcoded path pattern constructed by concatenating variables (`*/keyboard/keyboard/mouse.py`) - This is brittle because it assumes a fixed directory structure without programmatically discovering the file's actual path - Assertions #3 and #4 are entirely dependent on this fragile path, meaning they would fail if the structure was different, even if the file and its contents were correct. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - nclick_defs = cursor.grep_search( - query=NCLICKS_DEF, - include_pattern=f"*/{projects[0]['name']}/{PKG_NAME}/{MOUSE_FILE}", - case_sensitive=False, - explanation="Verify n_clicks() definition exists" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The final assertion is brittle because it uses the same hardcoded path pattern (`*/keyboard/keyboard/mouse.py`) as the initial assertion - The entire validation of the task's success hinges on this fragile, assumed path - This makes the check unreliable, as any deviation in the project's directory structure would cause the assertion to fail incorrectly. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - projects[0]['name'] - Comment/Issue: - The code accesses `projects[0]` without first checking if the `projects` list is empty - If the `cursor.list_dir` call doesn't find the directory named `PKG_NAME`, the `projects` list will be empty, causing an `IndexError` when `projects[0]` is accessed - Assertion blocks should be designed to only raise `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - Add an assertion to verify that the `projects` list is not empty before accessing its elements, for example: `assert len(projects) == 1, f"Expected to find project directory '{PKG_NAME}' but it was not found."` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - Looking for n-click function - Comment/Issue: - The phrase 'n-click function' is grammatically awkward and inconsistent with the function name 'n_clicks' used elsewhere in the code - Using 'n_clicks function' would be more consistent and clear. - Suggested Fixes: - Looking for n_clicks function - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - n_clicks_query = "n_clicks" - Comment/Issue: - The global/context variable `n_clicks_query` with value `"n_clicks"` was defined in the Query block - However, it is only assigned and referenced within a single code block (Turn 1, Block 15) - The guideline requires the variable to be referenced in at least two distinct code blocks (among DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Action, and Final Assertions). - Suggested Fixes: - To resolve this, ensure the variable `n_clicks_query` is used in at least one other qualifying block, such as the Initial or Final Assertions, to maintain consistency. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - click_query = "click" - Comment/Issue: - The global/context variable `click_query` with value `"click"` was defined in the Query block - However, it is only assigned and referenced within a single code block (Turn 1, Block 15) - The guideline requires the variable to be referenced in at least two distinct code blocks (among DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Action, and Final Assertions). - Suggested Fixes: - To resolve this, ensure the variable `click_query` is used in at least one other qualifying block, such as the Initial or Final Assertions, to maintain consistency. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - search_res = cursor.grep_search( - query=click_query, - explanation=click_explanation - ) - Comment/Issue: - The case description already provides the location of the relevant file ('keyboard/mouse.py') and clarifies that the 'click' function exists while the 'n_clicks' function does not - Using a global `grep_search` to find these functions is redundant and inefficient when the exact file path is known. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of searching, the model should directly proceed to read or edit the specified file 'keyboard/mouse.py'. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - edit_file_res = cursor.edit_file( - 'keyboard/mouse.py', - '# ... existing code ...\ndef double_click(button=LEFT):\n """ Sends a double click with the given button. """\n click(button)\n click(button)\n\ndef n_clicks(n, button=LEFT):\n """ Sends `n` clicks with the given button. """\n for _ in range(n):\n click(button)\n\ndef right_click():\n """ Sends a right click with the given button. """\n click(RIGHT)\n\ndef wheel(delta=1):\n# ... existing code ...', - "Edit the code to add an n_clicks() function that presses the left mouse button n times using the existing click function" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The user's request was solely to add an 'n_clicks()' function - The code used in the `edit_file` call also adds `double_click()` and `right_click()` functions, which were not mentioned or requested in the query - This constitutes performing actions outside the scope of the original request. - Suggested Fixes: - The content provided to the `edit_file` API should be restricted to only include the addition of the `n_clicks` function. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action - Issue Around: - # --- Search for the 'click' function --- - search_res = cursor.grep_search( - query=click_query, - explanation=click_explanation - ) - # --- Print results for 'click' --- - print("\n========== SEARCH RESULTS: 'click' ==========\n") - if search_res: - for s in search_res: - print(s) - else: - print("No results found for 'click'.") - # --- Search for the 'n_clicks' function --- - search_res1 = cursor.grep_search( - query=n_clicks_query, - explanation=n_clicks_explanation - ) - # --- Print results for 'n_clicks' --- - print("\n========== SEARCH RESULTS: 'n_clicks' ==========\n") - if search_res1: - for s in search_res1: - print(s) - else: - print("No results found for 'n_clicks'.") - Comment/Issue: - The code block contains two nearly identical sections for searching and printing results - The first section searches for 'click' and prints the outcome, and the second section does the exact same thing for 'n_clicks' - This duplication of the `cursor.grep_search` call and the subsequent printing logic is functionally redundant - The entire process could be encapsulated in a loop or a helper function that iterates over a list of search queries, making the code more concise and maintainable. - Suggested Fixes: - Refactor the repeated search and print logic into a loop to handle multiple queries without duplicating code - Example: searches = [ ("click", "Looking for click function"), ("n_clicks", "Looking for n-click function") ] for query, explanation in searches: search_results = cursor.grep_search(query=query, explanation=explanation) print(f"\n========== SEARCH RESULTS: '{query}' ==========\n") if search_results: for result in search_results: print(result) else: print(f"No results found for '{query}'.") - Verdict: failed | |||||||||
| 13800d53-4b6d-474a-b5a0-416ba80c08cc | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM243_base/CM243_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | CM243_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM243_base/CM243_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | gh-action | sonulohani-spec | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:32:01 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/2743105a98301763318ea9e9d1bea739c889ae2a | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - compare_is_list_subset(path ,expected_event_paths) - Comment/Issue: - The function `compare_is_list_subset` is called within a list comprehension - The first argument provided is `path`, which is a string, while the function's name and its other usage in the code imply it expects a list as the first argument - This type mismatch is highly likely to raise a `TypeError` or `AttributeError` within the `compare_is_list_subset` utility function, which is not an `AssertionError` and is not handled by a `try...except` block. - Suggested Fixes: - The intent seems to be to check for membership of a string within a list - The call should likely be replaced with a standard Python membership test, for example: `path in expected_event_paths`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - initiate DBs - Comment/Issue: - In a programming context, the standard term for setting up databases or variables for the first time is 'initialize', not 'initiate'. - Suggested Fixes: - initialize DBs - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # List all relevant home assistant devices - Comment/Issue: - The API name 'home assistant' should be capitalized as 'Home Assistant' for proper noun consistency. - Suggested Fixes: - # List all relevant Home Assistant devices - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # List all sdm devices - Comment/Issue: - The acronym 'sdm' should be capitalized as 'SDM' for consistency with the API's name. - Suggested Fixes: - # List all SDM devices - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Load bedroom cam image - Comment/Issue: - The word 'cam' should be capitalized to 'Cam' to maintain consistency with the naming convention used in the database and variable names (e.g., 'bedroom_cam_id', 'Bedroom Cam'). - Suggested Fixes: - # Load bedroom Cam image - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # List all relevant home assistant devices - # List all the lights - lights = home_assistant.list_devices("Light").get("entities", []) - print(f"All available lights: {lights}") - # List all sdm devices - sdm_devices = sdm.list_devices() - print(f"All available SDM devices: {sdm_devices}") - Comment/Issue: - The code lists all available lights and SDM devices, but the output of these calls is never used - The subsequent block (Block 18) hardcodes the specific device IDs ('LIGHT_004' and 'CAM_003'), making the listing calls redundant and non-contributory to the final goal. - Suggested Fixes: - Since the device IDs are hardcoded in the next step, these listing calls should be removed to make the code more efficient. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - generate_stream_output = sdm.execute_command(device_id=bedroom_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_stream_command) ... bedroom_cam_image = sdm.execute_command(device_id=bedroom_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_image_command) ... stop_stream_output = sdm.execute_command(device_id=bedroom_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=stop_stream_command) - Comment/Issue: - The `sdm.execute_command` method is called three times across blocks 18 and 20, each time with the same `device_id` and `project_id` arguments - This repetition of arguments for the same function call is structurally redundant and can be refactored into a helper function to improve code conciseness and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - Create a helper function that encapsulates the repeated parameters - For example: `def execute_bedroom_cam_command(command): return sdm.execute_command(device_id='CAM_003', project_id='my-home-56745', command_request=command)` - This would remove the duplicated arguments from each call. - Verdict: failed | |||||||||||
| 479f656d-a9bf-45e6-b793-c249787487aa | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM266_base/CM266_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | CM266_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM266_base/CM266_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | gh-action | sonulohani-spec | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:30:09 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/d3eb1c76226d41eb3b023af515053a9c965aa74e | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - "rtspUrl": generate_stream_output.get("results", {}).get("streamUrls", "").get("rtspUrl", "") - Comment/Issue: - The `execute_command` function's documentation specifies that when using the `sdm.devices.commands.generate_image_from_rtsp_stream` command, the `params` dictionary requires the `rtsp_url` key - The code incorrectly uses `rtspUrl` (camelCase) instead of `rtsp_url` (snake_case). - Suggested Fixes: - "rtsp_url": generate_stream_output.get("results", {}).get("streamUrls", "").get("rtspUrl", "") - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - "stream_extension_token": generate_stream_output.get("results", {}).get("streamExtensionToken", "") - Comment/Issue: - The `execute_command` function's documentation specifies that when using the `sdm.devices.commands.stop_rtsp_stream` command, the `params` dictionary requires the `stream_extension_token` key - The code incorrectly uses `streamExtensionToken` (camelCase) when accessing the value from the previous call's output, which implies the return key is also expected to be camelCase, but the parameter key in the current call should be `stream_extension_token`. - Suggested Fixes: - The key in the `params` dictionary should be `stream_extension_token` - The code uses this correctly, but it relies on an incorrect key (`streamExtensionToken`) from the previous call's output - While the access is wrong, the parameter key itself is correct in the `stop_stream_command` dictionary. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'emailAddress': 'john.doe@gmail.com' - Comment/Issue: - The Gmail DB is initialized with the user email 'john.doe@gmail.com'. 'John Doe' is a standard placeholder name and is considered fake data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'filename': 'sample_image.png' - Comment/Issue: - The Gmail DB contains a message attachment with the filename 'sample_image.png' - The word 'sample' indicates that this is placeholder or test data, not realistic business data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'names': [{'givenName': 'John', 'familyName': 'Doe'}] - Comment/Issue: - The Contacts DB is populated with contacts using common placeholder names such as 'John Doe' and 'Jane Doe' - This is not realistic user data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'emailAddresses': [{'value': 'john.doe@example.com', 'type': 'home', 'primary': True}] - Comment/Issue: - The Contacts DB contains email addresses using the '@example.com' domain, such as 'john.doe@example.com' - The 'example.com' domain is reserved for documentation and examples and signifies that the data is fake. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert len(list_of_emails.get("messages", [])) == 0, ( - f"Expected 0 emails to be sent to {recipient_email}, but found {len(list_of_emails.get('messages', []))}." - ) - Comment/Issue: - The API documentation for `gmail.list_messages` specifies a return type of `Dict[str, Union[List[...], None]]`, indicating that the value associated with the 'messages' key could be `None` - The code uses `list_of_emails.get("messages", [])`, which returns `None` if the key exists with a `None` value - The subsequent call to `len()` on this potentially `None` object would raise a `TypeError`, which is not an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - To prevent a TypeError, the list of messages should be retrieved more safely, for example: `messages = list_of_emails.get("messages") or []` and then `assert len(messages) == 0, ...`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - messages = list_result.get("messages", []) - # Get the labels of the first found message, if it exists - # This will be an empty list if not exactly one message was found. - labels = gmail.get_message(userId="me", id=messages[0]['id'], format='metadata').get("labelIds", []) if len(messages) == 1 else [] - Comment/Issue: - According to the API documentation for `gmail.list_messages`, the value for the 'messages' key in the returned dictionary can be `None` - The code `messages = list_result.get("messages", [])` will assign `None` to the `messages` variable if the API returns `{'messages': None}` - Consequently, any subsequent call to `len(messages)` will raise a `TypeError`. - Suggested Fixes: - To ensure `messages` is always a list, change the assignment to `messages = list_result.get("messages") or []` - This will prevent a `TypeError` when its length is checked. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Correct Assertion Message failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert len(contact_carlos.get('contacts', [])) == 1, "There are no contacts named Carlos" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert len(contact_carlos.get('contacts', [])) == 1, "There are no contacts named Carlos"` has an inaccurate message - The assertion fails if the number of contacts is 0 OR greater than 1 - However, the message "There are no contacts named Carlos" is only correct if the number of contacts is 0 - If there were 2 contacts named Carlos, the assertion would fail, but the message would be factually incorrect. - Suggested Fixes: - A more accurate message would be: f"Expected exactly 1 contact named Carlos, but found {len(contact_carlos.get('contacts', []))}." - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - 1. Assert that a contact named Carlos exists. - 1. Assert that no email has been sent to "Carlos@gmail.com". - Comment/Issue: - The numbered list in the markdown block uses '1.' for both points - The second point should be numbered '2.' for correct list formatting. - Suggested Fixes: - 1 - Assert that a contact named Carlos exists - 2 - Assert that no email has been sent to "Carlos@gmail.com". - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - sdm_devices = sdm.list_devices() - Comment/Issue: - The model calls `sdm.list_devices()` to see all available devices - However, in the next step (Block 18), it proceeds to use a hardcoded device ID (`CAM_002`) without using the output from the listing call - This makes the `list_devices()` call redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - contacts.list_contacts() - Comment/Issue: - The model calls `contacts.list_contacts()` to find the recipient's email address - However, the email 'Carlos@gmail.com' is already known from the case description and is hardcoded in the next block - This makes the call to list all contacts unnecessary and inefficient. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - generate_stream_command = {"command": "sdm.devices.commands.generate_rtsp_stream", - "params": {} - } - generate_stream_output = sdm.execute_command(device_id=backyard_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_stream_command) - Comment/Issue: - The pattern of defining a command dictionary and then calling `sdm.execute_command` with the same `device_id` and `project_id` is repeated three times across blocks 18 and 20 - This repetitive structure for executing different SDM commands is functionally redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - To eliminate the redundancy, encapsulate the command execution logic into a helper function - This function could take the specific command and its parameters as arguments, then construct the request dictionary and call `sdm.execute_command`. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||
| 3919d017-43ed-4489-a431-704eec0162bb | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM229_base/CM229_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | CM229_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM229_base/CM229_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | gh-action | abdullaha-abid | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:29:32 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/6528fd038aa60ad22259f245c1c85aa9a354c134 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert message_count== 0, f"There are {message_count} messages sent in {chat_space_display_name}, expected it to be 0." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion incorrectly checks if the message count is 0 - The query's goal is to 'Post a message', so the final assertion should verify that at least one message exists - This assertion checks for the initial state, not the expected final state, making the test logically incorrect - Additionally, the code uses the variable `space_name` which is not defined within this block, which would cause a runtime error. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should verify that a message was successfully posted, for example: `assert message_count > 0, f'Expected a message to be posted, but found {message_count}.'` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert message_count== 0, f"There are {message_count} messages sent in {chat_space_display_name}, expected it to be 0." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert message_count== 0` is present in both the initial and final assertion blocks - The initial assertion block already confirms that the message count is zero at the start - The final assertion block should verify the state *after* the action has been performed, not re-verify the initial state - This makes the assertion in the final block a repetition of a check already done in the initial block. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant assertion from the final assertion block - The final block should assert the expected state *after* the action, which might be `assert message_count == 1` if a message was sent, or if no message was expected to be sent, this check could be part of a larger assertion verifying no unintended side effects. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'User': [{'name': 'users/1', 'displayName': 'User 1', 'domainId': 'users', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False}, {'name': 'users/2', 'displayName': 'User 2', 'domainId': 'users', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False}], 'Space': [{'name': 'spaces/1', 'displayName': 'Fun Event', 'spaceType': 'SPACE', 'type': '', 'threaded': False, 'customer': 'customers/my_customer', 'createTime': '2021-01-01T12:00:00Z', 'lastActiveTime': '2021-01-01T12:00:00Z', 'externalUserAllowed': True, 'spaceHistoryState': 'HISTORY_ON', 'spaceThreadingState': 'THREADED_MESSAGES'}], 'Message': [{'name': '', 'sender': {'name': '', 'displayName': '', 'domainId': '', 'type': '', 'isAnonymous': False}, 'createTime': '', 'lastUpdateTime': '', 'deleteTime': '', 'text': '', 'formattedText': '', 'cards': [], 'cardsV2': [], 'annotations': [], 'thread': {'name': '', 'threadKey': ''}, 'space': {'name': '', 'type': '', 'spaceType': ''}, 'fallbackText': '', 'actionResponse': {}, 'argumentText': '', 'slashCommand': {}, 'attachment': [{'name': '', 'contentName': '', 'contentType': '', 'attachmentDataRef': {}, 'driveDataRef': {}, 'thumbnailUri': '', 'downloadUri': '', 'source': ''}], 'matchedUrl': {}, 'threadReply': False, 'clientAssignedMessageId': '', 'emojiReactionSummaries': [], 'privateMessageViewer': {'name': '', 'displayName': '', 'domainId': '', 'type': '', 'isAnonymous': False}, 'deletionMetadata': {}, 'quotedMessageMetadata': {}, 'attachedGifs': [], 'accessoryWidgets': []}], 'Membership': [{'name': 'spaces/AAAAAAA/members/USER123', 'state': 'JOINED', 'role': 'ROLE_MEMBER', 'member': {'name': 'USER123', 'displayName': 'John Doe', 'domainId': 'example.com', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False} - Comment/Issue: - The default Google Chat database loaded into the environment contains multiple instances of placeholder data - Specifically, it includes the generic name 'John Doe', the placeholder domain 'example.com', and generic display names such as 'User 1' and 'User 2' - This kind of data is not realistic and is considered test/dummy data. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace the placeholder user data in the default Google Chat database with more realistic names and domains to better align with a real-world scenario. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert message_count== 0, f"There are {message_count} messages sent in {chat_space_display_name}, expected it to be 0." - Comment/Issue: - The final assertion checks if the message count is 0, which is the same check performed in the initial assertion - This is redundant and logically incorrect, as the final assertion should verify the state *after* the action has been performed (i.e., that a message was sent), not re-verify the initial state. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be updated to check for the expected outcome, which is that one message has been sent - It should be changed to `assert message_count == 1`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - message_list = google_chat.list_messages(parent=space_name).get("messages", []) - Comment/Issue: - The code attempts to use the variable 'space_name' in the line `message_list = google_chat.list_messages(parent=space_name).get("messages", [])` - However, 'space_name' is not defined within this code block - Its definition exists in a previous block (Block 13) - If this block is executed independently or if the kernel state is reset, a `NameError` will be raised, which is not an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - To make this block self-contained, you should add the logic to retrieve the 'space_name' from the 'google_chat_spaces' list, just as it was done in the initial assertion block. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - # Find the exact spacename based on the chat space display name - Comment/Issue: - The word 'spacename' in the code comment should be two separate words: 'space name'. - Suggested Fixes: - # Find the exact space name based on the chat space display name - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Project ID From SDM devices output - Comment/Issue: - The word 'From' in the comment '# Project ID From SDM devices output' should not be capitalized as it is not at the beginning of a sentence. - Suggested Fixes: - # Project ID from SDM devices output - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - who is most likely the mail man - Comment/Issue: - The term 'mail man' in the print statement should be a single compound word: 'mailman'. - Suggested Fixes: - who is most likely the mailman - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - msg_body = 'Can someone please pick up the delivery parcel from the front door and call me?' - Comment/Issue: - The user's query asks for a message 'to pick up the mail' - The hardcoded message body is 'Can someone please pick up the delivery parcel from the front door and call me?' - This alters the object from 'mail' to 'delivery parcel' and adds an unrequested action ('call me'). - Suggested Fixes: - The message body should more closely reflect the user's request, for example: 'The mail carrier has arrived - Could someone please pick up the mail?' - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - image_1 = sdm.execute_command(device_id=front_door_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_image_command) - Comment/Issue: - The user's request is to post a text message - This block executes a command to generate an image from the camera event - This action was not requested and the generated image is not used in the final message, making the API call non-essential to achieving the user's stated goal. - Suggested Fixes: - This step could be removed unless the intent is to verify the event or attach the image to the message, neither of which happens in the subsequent steps. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - msg_sent = google_chat.create_message(parent = space_name,message_body = msg) - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `google_chat.create_message` using a variable `space_name` for the `parent` parameter - However, this variable is never defined or assigned a value in the preceding blocks - The code listed the available spaces in block 16 but failed to parse that output to retrieve the correct space ID for 'house-updates'. - Suggested Fixes: - The output from `google_chat.list_spaces()` in block 16 should be parsed to find the space named 'house-updates', and its `name` attribute (e.g., 'spaces/XXXXXXXXXXX') should be assigned to the `space_name` variable before this block is executed. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - google_chat_spaces = google_chat.list_spaces() - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `google_chat.list_spaces()` to fetch a list of chat spaces - This exact same API call was already made in the 'Initial Assertion' block (Block 13) to retrieve the same data - Since a variable (`space_name`) derived from this initial call is used in a later action block (Block 24), the execution state is maintained between blocks - Therefore, re-fetching the list of spaces is a redundant operation - The variable from the initial call could have been reused. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant API call - The subsequent print statement can use the `google_chat_spaces` variable that was already defined and populated in Block 13. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - "member": { - "name": "users/Jacob", - "type": "HUMAN", - } - Comment/Issue: - The DB initialization code hardcodes the user 'Jacob' as a member of the Google Chat space - Neither the query nor the case description mentions any specific user by name. - Suggested Fixes: - If a specific user is not required for the test, use a generic user or parameterize the user's name - If a specific user is required, their name should be mentioned in the case description. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - chat_space_display_name = "#house-updates" - Comment/Issue: - The setup code hardcodes the chat space display name as '#house-updates' - While the case description mentions a channel named 'house-updates', the '#' prefix is an assumption about the formatting of the display name that is not specified in the query or case description. - Suggested Fixes: - The channel name should be used as provided ('house-updates'), and any special formatting like adding a '#' should be handled programmatically if required by the API, rather than being assumed. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - chat_space_display_name = "#house-updates" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code hardcodes the chat space display name as '#house-updates' - While the case description mentions a channel named 'house-updates', the '#' prefix is an assumption about the formatting of the display name that is not specified in the query or case description. - Suggested Fixes: - The channel name should be used as provided ('house-updates'), and any special formatting like adding a '#' should be handled programmatically if required by the API, rather than being assumed. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Sample Ambiguity failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert message_count== 0, f"There are {message_count} messages sent in {chat_space_display_name}, expected it to be 0." - Comment/Issue: - The query "Post a message in the house updates space to pick up the mail once the mail carrier arrives" is ambiguous - It can be interpreted in two ways: 1) Post the message now, as the case description and DB initialization indicate that the mail carrier has already arrived (a 'Person' event at the 'Front Door Cam') - 2) Set up a future automation to post a message whenever the mail carrier arrives - The final assertion checks that no message has been sent (`assert message_count== 0`), which only validates the outcome where no immediate action is taken - This fails to account for the highly plausible interpretation that a message should be posted immediately, thus making the test scenario ambiguous. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertions should be changed to validate the more plausible outcome, which is that a message *is* sent to the '#house-updates' channel, since the trigger condition specified in the query has been met in the DB state. - Verdict: failed | |||||
| 4e3cfd47-c607-4a1c-87ce-8a1c876610e1 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Cursor/1633_base/Agent-1633_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-1633_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Cursor/1633_base/Agent-1633_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | nikhils-ui | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:29:07 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/eb88c6ae8e94ed8311f68c485946cb67bb2f050b | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - sheet_methods = [] - for row in sheet_values: - val = row[0].strip().lower() if (row and len(row) > 0 and row[0]) else None - sheet_methods.append(val) - normalized_methods = [m.lower() for m in method_names] - missing_methods = [m for m in normalized_methods if m not in sheet_methods] - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive check to see which methods from one list are present in another - It does this by manually lowercasing both lists and then using a list comprehension with the `in` operator - This entire logic is encapsulated by the `compare_is_list_subset` utility function, which should be used instead to perform the membership check for each item. - Suggested Fixes: - sheet_methods_raw = [row[0] for row in sheet_values if row and row[0]] missing_methods = [ m for m in method_names if not compare_is_list_subset(search_value=m, input_list=sheet_methods_raw) ] - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - directory . - Comment/Issue: - There is an unnecessary space before the period at the end of the first assertion point, which is a punctuation error. - Suggested Fixes: - directory. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Assert that the Google sheet contains all API method signatures mentioned under the # API markdown section in the README.md file. - Comment/Issue: - The term 'Google sheet' is used, which is inconsistent with the capitalization 'Google Sheet' used in the same document and the product's official name - Proper nouns should be capitalized consistently. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that the Google Sheet contains all API method signatures mentioned under the # API markdown section in the README.md file. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Assert that the Google sheet contains the filenames of all the API method signatures. - Comment/Issue: - The term 'Google sheet' is used, which is inconsistent with the capitalization 'Google Sheet' used in the same document and the product's official name - Proper nouns should be capitalized consistently. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that the Google Sheet contains the filenames of all the API method signatures. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - while pending_paths: - current_path = pending_paths.pop() - # Skip if already visited - if current_path in visited_paths: - continue - visited_paths.add(current_path) - # List contents of the current directory - entries = cursor.list_dir(current_path) - Comment/Issue: - The model performs a full, recursive traversal of the entire workspace using `cursor.list_dir` - However, the goal is to extract API names from a specific file (`README.md`) and then find their definitions - A full directory listing is not a necessary first step and doesn't directly contribute to solving the core problem - The model should have started by reading the `README.md` file. - Suggested Fixes: - The model should first read the `README.md` file to identify the APIs, and then search for those specific APIs within the codebase, rather than listing the entire directory structure. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # --- Mapping of API names to their corresponding source file paths --- - api_to_source_path = { - "keyboard.KEY_DOWN": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.KEY_UP": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.KeyboardEvent": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.all_modifiers": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.sided_modifiers": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.version": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.is_modifier": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.key_to_scan_codes": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.parse_hotkey": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.send": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.press": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.release": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.is_pressed": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.call_later": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.hook": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.on_press": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.on_release": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.hook_key": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.on_press_key": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.on_release_key": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.unhook": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.unhook_all": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.block_key": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.remap_key": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.parse_hotkey_combinations": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.add_hotkey": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.remove_hotkey": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.unhook_all_hotkeys": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.remap_hotkey": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.stash_state": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.restore_state": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.restore_modifiers": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.write": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.wait": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.get_hotkey_name": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.read_event": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.read_key": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.read_hotkey": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.get_typed_strings": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.start_recording": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.stop_recording": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.record": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.play": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.add_word_listener": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.remove_word_listener": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.add_abbreviation": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/__init__.py", - "keyboard.normalize_name": "/content/workspace/keyboard/keyboard/_canonical_names.py" - } - Comment/Issue: - The model was tasked with finding the APIs in the `README.md` file and then locating the file path for each API's definition - Instead of performing this discovery process, the model uses a large, hardcoded dictionary (`api_to_source_path`) that already contains all the answers - This completely sidesteps the core logic of the user's request. - Suggested Fixes: - The model should have parsed the API names from the `README.md` file (read in Block 17), then used a search tool to find the files containing their definitions, and then constructed the table data from those results. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.list_user_files(q="name = 'Keyboard APIs' and mimeType = 'application/vnd.google-apps.spreadsheet' and trashed = false")['files'][0]['id'] - Comment/Issue: - The model uses `gdrive.list_user_files` to search for the spreadsheet by name to get its ID - However, the spreadsheet ID was already obtained in the previous block (Block 19) from the response of the `google_sheets.create_spreadsheet` call and stored in the `target_spreadsheet_id` variable - Searching for a resource when its unique identifier is already known is inefficient and unnecessary. - Suggested Fixes: - The model should have used the `target_spreadsheet_id` variable that was captured from the create spreadsheet API response in the previous step. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - cursor.read_file( - target_file='keyboard/README.md', - should_read_entire_file=True, - start_line_one_indexed=1, - end_line_one_indexed_inclusive=1, - explanation="Read README.md for API extraction") - Comment/Issue: - This block reads the `keyboard/README.md` file - This same file was already read completely in Block 17 - Reading the same file again is a redundant and unnecessary API call. - Suggested Fixes: - This entire block should be removed as the content of README.md was already retrieved in Block 17. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # --- Append column headers to the spreadsheet --- - add_header = google_sheets.append_spreadsheet_values( - spreadsheet_id=target_spreadsheet_id, - range=target_range, - valueInputOption="USER_ENTERED", - values=header_row, - insertDataOption="INSERT_ROWS" - ) - print(add_header) - # --- Append the data to the spreadsheet --- - append_api_paths = google_sheets.append_spreadsheet_values( - spreadsheet_id=target_spreadsheet_id, - range=target_range, - valueInputOption="USER_ENTERED", - values=values, - insertDataOption="INSERT_ROWS" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `google_sheets.append_spreadsheet_values` twice consecutively with nearly identical parameters - The `spreadsheet_id`, `range`, `valueInputOption`, and `insertDataOption` arguments are the same in both calls - This redundant operation can be consolidated into a single, more efficient API call by first combining the `header_row` and `values` lists and then passing the combined list in one call. - Suggested Fixes: - Combine the two `append_spreadsheet_values` calls into one by concatenating the `header_row` and `values` lists before the call - This reduces the number of API requests from two to one. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - methods = [m.replace('\\', '') for m in re.findall(r'\[\s*keyboard\.\*\*(.*?)\*\*\s*\]', api_content)] - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code uses a specific regular expression to extract API names from the README.md file, assuming a format of `[keyboard.**api_name**]` - The case description only mentions a "bulleted list" of API names and does not specify this exact format - This is a hardcoded assumption about the file's content structure. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - range_key = f"{safe_sheet_name}!A1:{chr(64 + col_count)}{row_count}" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code assumes that the data table in the Google Sheet starts at cell A1 when constructing the range to read values - The case description mentions a "two-column table" but does not specify its starting position - This is a positional hardcoding assumption. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - relative = file_path.replace('/content/workspace/', '') - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code hardcodes the path prefix '/content/workspace/' to convert an absolute file path into a relative path - This path is specific to the execution environment and is not mentioned in the query or case description. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||||
| 9c41af30-0c35-4307-a430-eca7e7a3808d | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following_-_Phase_2/5770_base_GC_IF/Agent-5770_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | Agent-5770_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following_-_Phase_2/5770_base_GC_IF/Agent-5770_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | gh-action | chandrakanthb-cmyk | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:25:19 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/4486a5640f61934c6a662f270095a4e9dd494184 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - if (file_.get('name').lower().find(original_file_keyword_1)!=-1 and file_.get('name').lower().find(original_file_keyword_2)!=-1 and - file_.get('mimeType') == 'application/vnd.google-apps.spreadsheet'): - Comment/Issue: - The code performs manual case-insensitive substring checks using `.lower().find() != -1` and a direct string comparison for a MIME type using `==` - The provided utility functions `compare_is_string_subset` and `compare_strings` should be used for these operations to ensure standardized, case-insensitive comparisons as required by the guidelines. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace the manual string comparisons with the provided utility functions - For example: `if (compare_is_string_subset(original_file_keyword_1, file_.get('name')) and compare_is_string_subset(original_file_keyword_2, file_.get('name')) and compare_strings(file_.get('mimeType'), 'application/vnd.google-apps.spreadsheet')):` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Assert that a Slack channel exists with the name `sales-updates` . - Comment/Issue: - There is a grammatical error in the third assertion - An unnecessary space is present before the period at the end of the sentence. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that a Slack channel exists with the name `sales-updates`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Assert that a message was posted in the `sales-updates` Slack channel containig words 'Sales Forecast Shared to the Cudium shared drive'. - Comment/Issue: - The word 'containig' is misspelled in the third assertion - The correct spelling is 'containing'. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that a message was posted in the `sales-updates` Slack channel containing words 'Sales Forecast Shared to the Cudium shared drive'. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - file_list = gdrive.list_user_files() - Comment/Issue: - The code uses `gdrive.list_user_files()` to fetch all files in the user's Drive without any filtering - The filtering is then done client-side in the next block - This is highly inefficient as the API supports a query parameter `q` to perform server-side filtering, which would significantly reduce the amount of data transferred and processed - The commented-out code even shows the correct, more efficient approach. - Suggested Fixes: - Use the `q` parameter to filter the files on the server side - For example: `gdrive.list_user_files(q="name contains 'Sales Forecast' and mimeType = 'application/vnd.google-apps.spreadsheet'")` - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - channels = slack.list_channels() - Comment/Issue: - The code retrieves all Slack channels using `slack.list_channels()` and then iterates through them to find the correct one by name - This is an inefficient method, especially in a workspace with a large number of channels - A more direct API to find a channel by its name should be used if available. - Suggested Fixes: - If a more specific API exists to find a channel by name, such as `slack.search_channel_by_name()`, it should be used instead to avoid fetching all channels. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - if (file_.get('name').lower().find('sales')!=-1 and file_.get('name').lower().find('forecast')!=-1 and - file_.get('mimeType') == 'application/vnd.google-apps.spreadsheet'): - Comment/Issue: - The expression `file_.get('name').lower()` is evaluated twice within the same `if` condition - This is a redundant operation that can be avoided by storing the result in a variable before the conditional check, which would make the code slightly more efficient and readable. - Suggested Fixes: - Store the result of `file_.get('name').lower()` in a variable before the `if` statement to avoid calling the same methods twice - For example: ```python name_lower = file_.get('name').lower() if 'sales' in name_lower and 'forecast' in name_lower and file_.get('mimeType') == 'application/vnd.google-apps.spreadsheet': file_id = file_.get('id') break ``` - Verdict: failed | |||||||||||
| baa3687c-2a7e-4fe2-922b-c1e270052894 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following_-_Phase_2/5994_base_GC_IF/5994_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | 5994_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Instruction_Following_-_Phase_2/5994_base_GC_IF/5994_base_GC-E2E.ipynb | gh-action | samuelm-star | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:17:30 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/48598b4e824d2cfbc8f756fb22ed43bb196a5491 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - jira_user_payload = { - "name": "asmith", - "emailAddress": "asmith@example.com", - "displayName": "Anna Smith", - 'active': True - } - Comment/Issue: - The `create_user` function in the Jira API documentation does not list an 'active' key as a supported parameter within the `payload` dictionary - The provided code attempts to pass this key, which is a violation of the API specification. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the 'active': True key-value pair from the jira_user_payload dictionary, as it is not a documented parameter for the create_user function. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - another_user_payload = { - "name": "anotheruser", - "emailAddress": "another.user@example.com", - "displayName": "Another User", - 'active': True - } - Comment/Issue: - The `create_user` function in the Jira API documentation does not list an 'active' key as a supported parameter within the `payload` dictionary - The provided code attempts to pass this key, which is a violation of the API specification. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the 'active': True key-value pair from the another_user_payload dictionary, as it is not a documented parameter for the create_user function. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - search_query = f"to:{recipient_email}" - Comment/Issue: - The final assertion is too broad - It verifies that at least one email was sent to the recipient but fails to check if the email has the required subject line containing 'Alignment calls', which was the core task specified in the query - The initial assertion correctly establishes that no such email exists initially, so the final assertion should confirm its creation - As written, the test could pass even if an incorrect email was sent. - Suggested Fixes: - The search query should be more specific to validate the email's subject, for example: `search_query = f'to:{recipient_email} subject:"Alignment calls"'` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - scan the demo project in Jira - Comment/Issue: - The project name 'demo' is a common placeholder used for testing or demonstration purposes, not realistic business data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - assigned to asmith@example.com - Comment/Issue: - The email 'asmith@example.com' uses the placeholder domain 'example.com' and a generic name, which is indicative of fake data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - project with key `DEMO` - Comment/Issue: - The project key 'DEMO' is a common placeholder for demonstration or test data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - `name` of `asmith` - Comment/Issue: - The username 'asmith' is a generic placeholder and not a realistic name for business data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - jira.find_users(search_string="asmith", includeActive=True, includeInactive=False) - Comment/Issue: - The username 'asmith' and email 'asmith@example.com' are common placeholders and not representative of realistic business data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - print("Checking if Jira user 'anotheruser' exists...") - Comment/Issue: - The username 'anotheruser', display name 'Another User', and email 'another.user@example.com' are clear and explicit placeholders, not realistic data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - project_key = "DEMO" - Comment/Issue: - The project key 'DEMO' is a common placeholder for demonstration or test data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Comment/Issue: - The word 'code' at the end of the block name is redundant, as the block itself contains code - This makes the name slightly awkward. - Suggested Fixes: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - blocked_issues = jira.search_issues_jql(jql='project = "DEMO" AND priority = "Medium" AND status = "Blocked" AND assignee = "asmith"') - Comment/Issue: - The user query specifically asks to scan for issues with a 'linked issue dependency' - The JQL query used in this step fails to include this crucial filter - It only searches for project, priority, status, and assignee, but completely omits the requirement for a linked dependency - This leads to an incorrect set of issues being retrieved. - Suggested Fixes: - The JQL query should be modified to include a filter for linked issues, such as adding 'AND issueLinkType is not EMPTY' to the query string to correctly match the user's request. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - existing_emails = gmail.list_messages( - userId="me", - q='to:asmith@example.com subject:"Alignment calls"' - ) - Comment/Issue: - The Case Description explicitly states, "There exists no email with asmith@example.com as recipient and the subject containing 'Alignment calls'" - This API call is therefore redundant as it checks for a condition already established as false in the problem's context. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this API call as it is unnecessary given the information provided in the case description. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gmail.send_message(msg={'body': 'Hi, I found some blocked issues with linked dependencies assigned to you. Would you like to be added to alignment calls for the primary tickets to help resolve these dependencies?', 'recipient': 'asmith@example.com', 'subject': 'Alignment calls for primary tickets'}) - Comment/Issue: - This action sends an email based on the incomplete results from the Jira search in Block 16 - The email text mentions 'blocked issues with linked dependencies', but the search never actually verified the 'linked dependencies' criterion - The action is therefore illogical as it's based on unverified assumptions. - Suggested Fixes: - This action should only be performed after correctly filtering for issues with linked dependencies, as requested in the query. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Sample Ambiguity failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert len(messages) >= 1, f"Expected to find at least 1 email sent to {recipient_email}, but found {len(messages)}." - Comment/Issue: - The user's query is ambiguous - It asks the agent to find all 'blocked medium priority issues with a linked issue dependency' (plural) and then 'email her' (singular) about them - The database is initialized with three such issues that meet these criteria - This creates ambiguity as to whether the agent should send one consolidated email listing all three issues, or three separate emails (one for each issue) - The final assertion, `assert len(messages) >= 1`, is too weak to resolve this ambiguity - It would pass whether one email or three emails are sent, failing to validate a single, intended outcome against other plausible interpretations. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be more specific to resolve the ambiguity - For example, if the intended outcome is a single consolidated email, the assertion should be `assert len(messages) == 1` and should also check the email's body to ensure it mentions all three relevant issues - If the intended outcome is three separate emails, the assertion should be `assert len(messages) == 3`. - Verdict: failed | |||||||||
| 4f41f29b-94f2-4f18-9e5c-1e3f620e4a33 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/723_edge_2/Agent-723_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | Agent-723_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/723_edge_2/Agent-723_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | muhammadf1-ui | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:16:10 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/0ad5c107c8c71d94ef9edc231bda42da53d4dbda | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - finance_file_metadata2 = { - "name": "Finance Budget.xlsx", - "mimeType": "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet", - "fullText": "Q2 finance projections and budget allocations." - } - gdrive.create_file_or_folder(body=finance_file_metadata2) - Comment/Issue: - The `create_file_or_folder` function in the gdrive API does not have a parameter `fullText` - The `body` parameter should only contain keys that are documented for the file resource, such as 'name' and 'mimeType'. - Suggested Fixes: - The key 'fullText' is not a valid property within the 'body' dictionary for the `create_file_or_folder` function - It should be removed - Valid keys include 'name', 'mimeType', 'parents', etc. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert not has_finance_files_in_folder, ( - f"FA3 Failed: Expected no finance files in '{finance_folder_name}', but found at least one." - ) - Comment/Issue: - The setup code in Block 11 creates the finance files directly inside the 'Finance Q2' folder by setting the parent during creation - However, this assertion `assert not has_finance_files_in_folder` incorrectly expects the folder to be empty of finance files initially - This contradicts the setup logic, making the assertion fail based on the initial state established by the setup code - While this is an assertion logic error and not a direct API call violation, it reflects a misunderstanding of the state created by the API calls in the setup block. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion logic should be corrected to reflect the actual initial state - Given the setup, it should assert that finance files *are* present in the 'Finance Q2' folder, not that they are absent. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - message_text_format = "2" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion in FA2 hardcodes the expected file count in the Slack message to '2' - The query specifies the pattern of the message but not the exact count - This makes the test brittle because it would fail if the simulation were set up with a different number of 'finance' files (e.g., 1 or 3), even if the agent's logic for moving files and checking for pre-existing messages was perfectly correct - The assertion should validate the agent's behavior (moving all files, not re-sending a message) rather than a specific, hardcoded data point. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of asserting a hardcoded count, the assertion should dynamically determine the expected count by querying the number of finance files in the 'Finance Q2' folder - A better approach, given the golden answer ('Message already exists...'), would be to assert that no *new* message was sent by the agent, for instance by comparing the message count before and after the agent's run. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - finance_folder = next( - (fld for fld in folders if compare_is_string_subset(finance_folder_name, fld.get('name', ''))), - None - ) - assert finance_folder is not None, f"FA1 Failed: Folder containing '{finance_folder_name}' not found." - target_folder_id = finance_folder.get("id", None) - assert target_folder_id, f"FA1 Failed: Folder ID missing for '{finance_folder_name}'." - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block (14) already verifies that the 'Finance Q2' folder exists and has an ID - The final assertion block (31) repeats this exact check before proceeding to verify the location of the files - Re-asserting the existence of a setup component is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - target_channel = next( - (c for c in channels if compare_is_string_subset(channel_name, c.get("name", ""))), - None - ) - assert target_channel, f"FA2 Failed: Slack channel containing '{channel_name}' not found." - target_channel_id = target_channel.get("id") - assert target_channel_id, "FA2 Failed: Slack channel ID missing." - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block (14) already verifies that the slack channel 'team-sprint' exists and has a valid ID - The final assertion block (31) repeats this check before verifying the content of the message in the channel - Re-verifying the existence of the channel is redundant as it's part of the initial setup. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert finance_folder is not None, f"FA1 Failed: Folder containing '{finance_folder_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion re-checks for the existence of the 'Finance Q2' folder, a condition that was already verified in the initial assertions - Final assertions should focus on the effects of the agent's action, not re-validating the static environment setup - The fetch is necessary to get the folder's ID for subsequent checks, but the assertion itself is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert target_folder_id, f"FA1 Failed: Folder ID missing for '{finance_folder_name}'." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion re-checks that the 'Finance Q2' folder has an ID - The existence of the folder and its properties are part of the static environment setup, which was already confirmed in the initial assertions - Re-asserting this in the final check is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert target_channel, f"FA2 Failed: Slack channel containing '{channel_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion re-checks for the existence of the 'team-sprint' Slack channel, a condition that was already verified in the initial assertions - Final assertions should focus on the effects of the agent's action, not re-validating the static environment setup - While the code needs to fetch the channel to verify the message, asserting its existence again is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert target_channel_id, "FA2 Failed: Slack channel ID missing." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion re-checks that the 'team-sprint' channel has an ID - The existence of the channel and its properties are part of the static environment setup, which was already confirmed in the initial assertions - Re-asserting this in the final check is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - with following pattern - Comment/Issue: - The phrase 'with following pattern' is grammatically incorrect - The definite article 'the' is missing before 'following'. - Suggested Fixes: - with the following pattern - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - it's filename - Comment/Issue: - The word 'it's' is a contraction for 'it is' - The possessive pronoun 'its' should be used here to indicate that the filename belongs to the file. - Suggested Fixes: - its filename - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - message_text_to_send = "Total number of files in Finance Q2 folder: " - Comment/Issue: - The global variable `message_text_to_send` with the value `"Total number of files in Finance Q2 folder: "` is defined in the Query & Metadata block - However, this exact variable name is never used in the subsequent code blocks (DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Action, Final Assertions) - A different variable, `message_text_format`, is used in the Initial Assertion (Block 14) and Final Assertion (Block 31) blocks, which violates the requirement for an exact name match. - Suggested Fixes: - Rename the variable `message_text_format` in blocks 14 and 31 to `message_text_to_send` to match the global variable definition - Also, ensure the value in block 31 is corrected to match the global variable's value. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.list_user_files(q="mimeType != 'application/vnd.google-apps.folder' and trashed = false") - Comment/Issue: - The API call `gdrive.list_user_files` is used to list all files that are not folders - However, the user's query specifically requested to search for files whose filenames contain the keyword 'finance' - This API call retrieves all files, which is inefficient and does not adhere to the user's specific search criteria. - Suggested Fixes: - The `q` parameter should be updated to filter by the filename keyword as requested in the query - For example: `gdrive.list_user_files(q="name contains 'finance' and mimeType != 'application/vnd.google-apps.folder' and trashed = false")`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - slack.list_channels() - Comment/Issue: - The user has already provided the specific Slack channel name, 'team-sprint' - Calling `slack.list_channels()` to retrieve a list of all channels is an unnecessary and inefficient step, as the target channel is already known. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of listing all channels, the model should use a more direct method to obtain the ID for the 'team-sprint' channel or use the name directly if the subsequent API calls support it. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content( - fileId='file_4', - addParents='file_3', - ) - Comment/Issue: - This block contains a call to `gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content` - This exact same method call structure is repeated in Block 23, with only the `fileId` argument differing - This pattern of repetition indicates that the logic could be consolidated into a single loop that iterates over a list of file IDs, making the code more concise and maintainable. - Suggested Fixes: - Combine this call with the one in Block 23 into a loop - For example: `for file_id in ['file_4', 'file_5']: gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content(fileId=file_id, addParents='file_3')`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content( - fileId='file_5', - addParents='file_3', - ) - Comment/Issue: - This block contains a call to `gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content` that is structurally identical to the one in Block 21 - The only difference is the `fileId` - This repetition is unnecessary and could be refactored into a loop that processes a list of file IDs, which would improve code efficiency and readability. - Suggested Fixes: - Combine this call with the one in Block 21 into a loop - For example: `for file_id in ['file_4', 'file_5']: gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content(fileId=file_id, addParents='file_3')`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - message_text_format = "2" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code hardcodes the expected number of files in the Slack message to be '2' - The query asks for the 'Total number of files in Finance Q2 folder', and the case description only mentions that a message with this information is already present - Neither the query nor the case description specifies the exact number of files - This number is determined by the DB initialization step, and the assertion should dynamically calculate this value rather than assuming a fixed number. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should dynamically determine the number of files in the 'Finance Q2' folder by querying the gdrive state at the time of assertion, and then use that calculated number to verify the Slack message content. - Verdict: failed | ||||||
| c557fcf3-758b-4520-8099-5e269b13477b | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Cursor/1504_base/Agent-1504_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-1504_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Cursor/1504_base/Agent-1504_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | shikatest | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:12:54 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/e9827ce0708c24ec8ae64987770f99b769f664d2 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed
- Block Name:
- Final Assertion code
- Issue Around:
- for cl in class_lines:
- cls = cl["class_name"]
- parent = cl["parent_class"]
- if not parent:
- continue
- parent_pattern = f"Parent: {parent}"
- child_pattern = f"Class: {cls}"
- found_parent = parent_pattern in doc_repr_stripped
- found_child = child_pattern in doc_repr_stripped
- assert found_parent and found_child, (
- f"FA3 Failed: Class '{cls}' with parent '{parent}' not correctly summarized "
- f"in document '{doc_title}'. "
- f"Expected to find '{parent_pattern}' and '{child_pattern}' in the document."
- )
- Comment/Issue:
- The assertion hardcodes a specific string format ('Parent: |
❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - doc_titles = [file.get("name", "") for file in drive_files_list] - doc_match_count = sum( - 1 for title in doc_titles - if compare_strings(title, doc_title) - ) - assert doc_match_count == 0, ( - f"Expected no Google Document titled '{doc_title}' to exist, " - f"but found {doc_match_count}. Found titles: {doc_titles}" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The code first queries for files with the exact title using `gdrive.list_user_files(q=...)` - Then, it iterates through the results to count how many files match that same title - This post-query filtering is redundant - The assertion could be simplified to checking if the result list from the initial query is empty, for example, `assert not drive_files_list`. - Suggested Fixes: - assert not drive_files_list, f"Expected no Google Document titled '{doc_title}' to exist, but found {len(drive_files_list)} - Found files: {drive_files_list}" - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - matched_doc = next( - (f for f in files_list if compare_is_string_subset(doc_title, f.get("name", ""))), - None - ) - assert matched_doc, f"FA1 Failed: Expected Google Document titled '{doc_title}', but none found." - Comment/Issue: - The code queries for files with an exact name match using `q="name = '{doc_title}'"` - It then iterates through the results using `next()` with a `compare_is_string_subset` check - This second check is redundant because the initial API query already guarantees an exact match - The assertion can be simplified to check if the `files_list` is not empty. - Suggested Fixes: - assert files_list, f"FA1 Failed: Expected Google Document titled '{doc_title}', but none found." matched_doc = files_list[0] - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - if cls not in doc_repr_stripped - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the `in` operator for a case-sensitive substring search - The utility function `compare_is_string_subset` should be used instead for a more robust, case-insensitive check as mandated by the guidelines. - Suggested Fixes: - if not compare_is_string_subset(cls, doc_repr_stripped) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - found_parent = parent_pattern in doc_repr_stripped - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the `in` operator for a case-sensitive substring search - The utility function `compare_is_string_subset` should be used instead for a more robust, case-insensitive check as mandated by the guidelines. - Suggested Fixes: - found_parent = compare_is_string_subset(parent_pattern, doc_repr_stripped) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - found_child = child_pattern in doc_repr_stripped - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the `in` operator for a case-sensitive substring search - The utility function `compare_is_string_subset` should be used instead for a more robust, case-insensitive check as mandated by the guidelines. - Suggested Fixes: - found_child = compare_is_string_subset(child_pattern, doc_repr_stripped) - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - initiate - Comment/Issue: - The word 'initiate' in the block title is likely a typo for 'initialize' - The standard verb for setting up databases in a programming context is 'initialize'. - Suggested Fixes: - initialize - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.list_user_files(q="name = 'Music Player Info' and mimeType = 'application/vnd.google-apps.document' and trashed = false") - Comment/Issue: - The model is checking if the Google Doc "Music Player Info" exists - However, the problem description explicitly states that "No Google Document with the title 'Music Player Info' currently exists." This API call is redundant as it attempts to retrieve information that was already provided in the context. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this step - The model should proceed with creating the document as the prompt states it doesn't exist. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - documentId=gdrive.list_user_files(q="name = 'Music Player Info' and mimeType = 'application/vnd.google-apps.document' and trashed = false").get('files', [])[0].get('id', '') - Comment/Issue: - The model uses `gdrive.list_user_files` to find the ID of the document it just created in Block 22 - The `google_docs.create_document` function call returns the `documentId` of the newly created document - The model should have captured this ID from the previous step's output instead of performing an unnecessary search. - Suggested Fixes: - The `documentId` from the output of the `google_docs.create_document` call in Block 22 should be used directly. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.list_user_files(q="name = 'Music Player Info' and mimeType = 'application/vnd.google-apps.document' and trashed = false") - Comment/Issue: - The code makes a redundant call to `gdrive.list_user_files` with the exact same query parameters that were used in a previous action step (Block 20) - The agent first calls this function to check if a file exists, then creates the file, and then immediately calls the same function again to retrieve the file's ID - This second call is functionally redundant; the agent should have captured the ID from the return value of the `google_docs.create_document` call in the preceding step (Block 22) instead of re-searching for a resource it just created. - Suggested Fixes: - Capture the document ID from the return value of the `google_docs.create_document()` call in Block 22 and use it directly - This avoids an unnecessary API call and makes the code more efficient. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - code_file_extensions = [ - 'java', 'py', 'c', 'cpp', 'cc', 'h', 'hpp', - 'cs', 'js', 'ts', 'go', 'rb', 'php', 'swift', 'kt' - ] - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code hardcodes a specific list of file extensions (`code_file_extensions`) to identify source code files - This list is an assumption and is not mentioned in the query or case description, which only refer to "source code files" generally. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - parent_pattern = f"Parent: {parent}" - child_pattern = f"Class: {cls}" - found_parent = parent_pattern in doc_repr_stripped - found_child = child_pattern in doc_repr_stripped - assert found_parent and found_child - Comment/Issue: - The assertion code checks for the literal strings "Parent: " and "Class: " to verify the parent-child relationships - The query only specifies using "indentation to represent parent-child class relationships," not these specific prefixes - This is a hardcoded assumption about the output format. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||
| e710e42b-12f3-43e1-add9-d12c55205725 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/User_Simulation_-_MT/214_base_US_ToolShift/Agent-214_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | Agent-214_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/User_Simulation_-_MT/214_base_US_ToolShift/Agent-214_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | gh-action | muhammada17-cell | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:06:57 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/458c921698f0db5e70fe844b4eb86cd7b18283b2 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'username': 'admin', 'displayName': 'Admin User' - Comment/Issue: - The Confluence database state contains multiple placeholder usernames and display names, such as 'admin', 'Admin User', 'editor', 'Editor User', 'user1', 'User One', and 'beta_user' - These are common test data patterns and not realistic user information. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - '4': {'key': 'TEST', 'status': 'complete', 'description': 'Test space removed'} - Comment/Issue: - The `deleted_spaces_tasks` section of the Confluence database contains an entry with the key 'TEST' and a description that includes 'Test space' - This is a clear use of placeholder test data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - for ch in channels_resp.get("channels", []) - Comment/Issue: - The code iterates over the result of `channels_resp.get("channels", [])` - While the API documentation for `slack.list_channels` states that the 'channels' key contains a list, it does not explicitly forbid the value from being `None` - If the API returns `{'channels': None}`, the `.get("channels", [])` method will evaluate to `None`, not the default empty list - Attempting to iterate over `None` will raise a `TypeError`, which is not an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - To prevent a `TypeError`, the code should handle the possibility of the 'channels' key having a `None` value - A safer way to iterate would be `for ch in channels_resp.get("channels") or []:`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - for ch in channels.get("channels", []): - Comment/Issue: - The code iterates over the result of `channels.get("channels", [])` - The `.get()` method's default value is only used if the key is missing - If the `slack.list_channels` API returns a dictionary where the 'channels' key exists but its value is `None` (e.g., `{'ok': True, 'channels': None}`), then `channels.get("channels", [])` will return `None` - Iterating over `None` will raise a `TypeError`, violating the guideline that only `AssertionError` should be raised. - Suggested Fixes: - The iteration should be made robust against a potential `None` value - This can be achieved by changing the loop to `for ch in channels.get("channels") or []:`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - item.get("id") == parent_id - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a direct string comparison `item.get("id") == parent_id` inside a generator expression to find a parent object by its ID - This is inconsistent with other ID comparisons in the same script (e.g., `compare_strings(parent_id, page_id)`) which correctly use the provided utility function - For consistency and robustness against case or whitespace variations, all such string comparisons should utilize `compare_strings`. - Suggested Fixes: - compare_strings(item.get("id", ""), parent_id) - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'text': 'Thanks for the headsup' - Comment/Issue: - The word 'headsup' is a common colloquialism but is formally spelled as 'heads-up' or 'heads up'. - Suggested Fixes: - 'text': 'Thanks for the heads-up' - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'description': 'ECorporate blog posts' - Comment/Issue: - The word 'ECorporate' appears to be a typographical error - The correct word is likely 'Corporate'. - Suggested Fixes: - 'description': 'Corporate blog posts' - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed
- Block Name:
- Action code
- Issue Around:
- confluence.get_space_content(spaceKey='INCIDENTS')
- Comment/Issue:
- The model uses `confluence.get_space_content` to list all content in a space, even though the specific page title ('System Outage Report - Jan 2025') is already known
- A more direct API call to find the page by its title would be more efficient
- Furthermore, the output of this call is not used in the subsequent steps, making this an unnecessary API call.
- Suggested Fixes:
- Use a more specific function like `confluence.get_content_by_title(spaceKey='INCIDENTS', title='System Outage Report - Jan 2025')` to directly retrieve the page ID.
- Verdict: failed
----------------------------------------
❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed
- Block Name:
- Action code
- Issue Around:
- confluence.create_content(body={'ancestors': ['8'], 'body': {'storage': {'representation': 'storage', 'value': ' Issue resolved - Database connection pool increased to prevent future occurrences. '}}, 'spaceKey': 'INCIDENTS', 'type': 'comment', 'title': 'Re: System Outage Report - Jan 2025'}) - Comment/Issue: - The `confluence.create_content` call uses a hardcoded ancestor ID ('8') to add a comment - This ID was not retrieved from any previous step, which breaks the logical sequence of operations - The model should have first found the target page's ID and then used that ID to create the comment. - Suggested Fixes: - The value for 'ancestors' should be a variable containing the page ID retrieved in a previous step, not a hardcoded value. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - slack.list_channels(types='public_channel,private_channel') - Comment/Issue: - The model calls `slack.list_channels` despite already knowing the target channel name ('ops-team') - This is an inefficient use of the API - A more direct lookup should have been performed - Additionally, the result of this listing operation is not used in the subsequent API call, making this step redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of listing all channels, the model should parse the output of this call to find the ID for the 'ops-team' channel or use a more direct lookup function if one exists. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - slack.post_chat_message(channel='CDFE7DF77', text="The incident documented in 'System Outage Report - Jan 2025' has been resolved. Please see the Confluence page for details.") - Comment/Issue: - The model uses a hardcoded channel ID ('CDFE7DF77') in the `slack.post_chat_message` call - This ID was not obtained from the previous `slack.list_channels` call, creating an illogical sequence - The model should have identified the correct channel ID from the known channel name and used it here. - Suggested Fixes: - The 'channel' parameter should be populated with the ID of the 'ops-team' channel, which should have been retrieved in the previous step. - Verdict: failed |
||||||||||
| de84e489-7f1d-4be5-bffa-a6873aea4c37 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/938_base/Agent-938_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-938_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/938_base/Agent-938_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | shubham-kgp24 | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:04:48 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/4fef0a5b1d9b8a2fba64944010f0fdc199f1d013 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert len(sent_messages) > 0, "No SENT messages found after sending." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert len(sent_messages) > 0` is unnecessary - The subsequent loop iterates through `sent_messages` to find a specific email and sets `email_found` to True if it's found - The later assertion `assert email_found` already covers the case where `sent_messages` is empty, as the loop would not run and `email_found` would remain False, causing the assertion to fail - Therefore, the initial check on the length of the list is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the assertion `assert len(sent_messages) > 0, "No SENT messages found after sending."` as its condition is implicitly checked by the `assert email_found` statement later in the code. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Correct Assertion Message failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert recipient_ok, ( - f"Expected recipient '{RECIPIENT_EMAIL}', but no matching email was found." - ) - Comment/Issue: - The assertion message is misleading - If this assertion fails, it means an email with the correct subject was found (because the preceding `assert email_found` would have passed), but its recipient was incorrect - The message "no matching email was found" contradicts the fact that an email matching the subject was indeed found. - Suggested Fixes: - A clearer message would be: f"Found an email with a matching subject, but the recipient was incorrect - Expected '{RECIPIENT_EMAIL}'." - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - any(key in subject for key in SUBJECT_MEANING_KEYWORDS) - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive substring check using manual lowercasing (`subject = msg.get("subject", "").lower()`) and the `in` operator (`key in subject`) - The provided utility function `compare_is_string_subset` is designed for this exact purpose and should have been used within the generator expression to maintain consistency and adhere to the project's standards. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace `subject = msg.get("subject", "").lower()` and the subsequent check with `any(compare_is_string_subset(key, msg.get("subject", "")) for key in SUBJECT_MEANING_KEYWORDS)`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - subject_meaning_ok = any(key in subject for key in SUBJECT_MEANING_KEYWORDS) - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive substring check using manual lowercasing (`subject = msg.get("subject", "").lower()`) and the `in` operator (`key in subject`) - The provided utility function `compare_is_string_subset` is designed for this exact purpose and should have been used within the generator expression to maintain consistency and adhere to the project's standards. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace `subject = msg.get("subject", "").lower()` and the subsequent check with `subject_meaning_ok = any(compare_is_string_subset(key, msg.get("subject", "")) for key in SUBJECT_MEANING_KEYWORDS)`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - if any(key in body for key in BODY_MEANING_KEYWORDS): - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive substring check using manual lowercasing (`body = msg.get("body", "").lower()`) and the `in` operator (`key in body`) - The provided utility function `compare_is_string_subset` is designed for this exact purpose and should have been used within the generator expression to maintain consistency and adhere to the project's standards. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace `body = msg.get("body", "").lower()` and the subsequent check with `if any(compare_is_string_subset(key, msg.get("body", "")) for key in BODY_MEANING_KEYWORDS):`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - 3. Assert that no email has already been sent to instructor-feedback@onlinecampus.edu whose subject indicates lecture-related confusion - Comment/Issue: - The last sentence in the list is missing a period at the end, which is a punctuation error. - Suggested Fixes: - 3 - Assert that no email has already been sent to instructor-feedback@onlinecampus.edu whose subject indicates lecture-related confusion. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - 2. Assert that the email was sent to instructor-feedback@onlinecampus.edu - Comment/Issue: - The second item in the list is a sentence that is missing a period at the end - This is a punctuation error. - Suggested Fixes: - 2 - Assert that the email was sent to instructor-feedback@onlinecampus.edu. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - - DOC_TITLE : "Midterm Survey Responses" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'DOC_TITLE' is defined in the metadata but is not correctly used across the required number of blocks - It is declared and used with the exact name and value only in the Initial Assertion block (Block 15) - In the DB Initialization block (Block 12), a variable with a different name ('doc_title') is used, and in the Action block (Block 17), the value is hardcoded. - Suggested Fixes: - To adhere to the guideline, the variable `DOC_TITLE` should be used consistently in at least two distinct code blocks - For example, use the `DOC_TITLE` variable in both the DB Initialization (Block 12) and Initial Assertion (Block 15) blocks instead of using a lowercase version or hardcoding the string. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - - EMAIL_SUBJECT : "Lecture Confusion Feedback" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'EMAIL_SUBJECT' is defined in the metadata but is not used in at least two distinct code blocks - It is declared in the Initial Assertion block (Block 15) but is not referenced again in that block or any other block with the exact name - In the Action block (Block 18), a different, lowercase variable ('email_subject') is used instead. - Suggested Fixes: - The variable `EMAIL_SUBJECT` should be consistently used in at least two distinct code blocks - It is currently only declared in one block - The lowercase variable `email_subject` in the Action block (Block 18) should be replaced with `EMAIL_SUBJECT` to ensure consistency. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - email_body_content = relevant_points[0] - Comment/Issue: - The user's query asks to email 'all points' that mention confusion - The code, however, is written to only handle a single point by using `relevant_points[0]` - This will fail to meet the user's requirement if more than one relevant point exists in the document, as it would ignore all subsequent points - Additionally, if no relevant points are found, this code will raise an `IndexError` instead of handling the case gracefully (e.g., by not sending an email). - Suggested Fixes: - The code should be modified to handle all found points - For example: `email_body_content = "\n".join(relevant_points)` - It should also include a check to ensure `relevant_points` is not empty before trying to send an email. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - The Google Doc titled "Midterm Survey Responses" exists and at least one point in the document mentions confusion about lectures and includes the word 'unclear' (case-insensitive match). - Comment/Issue: - The case description includes the specific keyword 'unclear' which dictates how the query should be fulfilled - The original query only asks for points that "mention students' confusion about lectures", which is more general - Specifying the exact word 'unclear' is a form of hardcoding because it adds a detail about the expected outcome that is not present in the user's request. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - BODY_MEANING_KEYWORDS = ["lecture", "confus", "unclear", "not clear"] - Comment/Issue: - The final assertion code uses a list of keywords to validate the email body - The keyword 'not clear' is not mentioned in the query, case description, or global variables - It is an assumed synonym for 'unclear', making it a hardcoded value. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove 'not clear' from the list of keywords as it is not specified in the prompt. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||
| b0470975-5cdc-432f-99b6-ec6ffeb5a555 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM318/CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM318/CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | gh-action | chandrakanthb-cmyk | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 11:04:23 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/0e34c2593ec4628af853da4116ab5f3e8660e653 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'User': [{'name': 'users/1', 'displayName': 'User 1', 'domainId': 'users', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False}, {'name': 'users/2', 'displayName': 'User 2', 'domainId': 'users', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False}] - Comment/Issue: - The `Google chat DB` is initialized with default data that contains multiple instances of placeholder values - The `displayName` values 'User 1' and 'User 2', along with the `domainId` 'users', are generic and not representative of realistic data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'customer': 'customers/my_customer' - Comment/Issue: - The `Google chat DB` is initialized with default data that contains placeholder values - The `customer` ID 'customers/my_customer' is a generic placeholder and not a realistic identifier. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'member': {'name': 'USER123', 'displayName': 'John Doe', 'domainId': 'example.com', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False} - Comment/Issue: - The `Google chat DB` is initialized with default data that contains placeholder values - In the 'Membership' section, the `member` object contains multiple placeholders: the name 'USER123', the `displayName` 'John Doe', and the `domainId` 'example.com' - These are all common examples of non-realistic, test data. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - message_list = (google_chat.list_messages(parent=space_name) or {}).get("messages", []) or [] - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `google_chat.list_messages(parent=space_name)` - If the preceding for-loop fails to find a space with the specified display name, the `space_name` variable will remain `None` - According to the API documentation, the `parent` parameter for the `list_messages` function is required and must be a string - Passing `None` to this required parameter will likely raise a `TypeError` or `ValueError` from within the function, which is not an `AssertionError` - The defensive `or {}` that follows the function call will not prevent this error from occurring. - Suggested Fixes: - Before calling `google_chat.list_messages`, you should assert that a space was found - For example: `assert space_name is not None, f"Assertion Failed: The space '{chat_space_display_name}' was not found."` This ensures the program fails with a descriptive assertion error rather than an unexpected `TypeError` or `ValueError`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - The google chat space "#kitchen-updates" exists in the system with no messages in it yet. - Comment/Issue: - The word 'google' should be capitalized to 'Google' as it is a proper noun. - Suggested Fixes: - The Google chat space "#kitchen-updates" exists in the system with no messages in it yet. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - # Initializing the google chat with Daniel - Comment/Issue: - The word 'google' in the comment should be capitalized to 'Google' as it is a proper noun. - Suggested Fixes: - # Initializing the Google chat with Daniel - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action markdown - Issue Around: - Send a google chat message in the kitchen updates space informing that their husband has finished washing the dishes. - Comment/Issue: - The word 'google' should be capitalized to 'Google' as it is a proper noun. - Suggested Fixes: - Send a Google chat message in the kitchen updates space informing that their husband has finished washing the dishes. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - google_chat_spaces = google_chat.list_spaces() - Comment/Issue: - The user query explicitly mentions the "kitchen updates space" - Calling `google_chat.list_spaces()` to find this space is inefficient and unnecessary, as the target is already known - A more direct lookup or get function should be used instead of listing all available spaces. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of listing all spaces, use a more direct method to get the specific space, such as `google_chat.find_space(display_name='kitchen updates')`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - sdm_devices = sdm.list_devices() - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `sdm.list_devices()` but then hardcodes the `kitchen_cam_id` in the next step - This indicates the specific device was already known, making the call to list all devices redundant and not contributing to the overall goal. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the `sdm.list_devices()` call and use the known device ID directly. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - sdm.execute_command(device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_stream_command) - Comment/Issue: - The function `sdm.execute_command` is invoked three times across blocks 21 and 23 - In each call, the arguments `device_id=kitchen_cam_id` and `project_id=project_id` are identical - This repetition is functionally redundant and can be refactored into a helper function to improve code conciseness and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - Create a helper function to encapsulate the repeated arguments - For example: `def execute_kitchen_cam_command(command): return sdm.execute_command(device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=command)` - Then, use this helper for all three calls, passing only the unique command dictionary each time. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||||
| d6b1ef73-121e-4a2e-a732-b540add05d5b | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/348_edge_2/Agent-348_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | Agent-348_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/348_edge_2/Agent-348_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | samuelm-star | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:57:53 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/0c200d8f23cec6014fd7b0846aedf7fd1cd1b6de | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - update_response = gdrive.update_file_metadata_or_content( - fileId=file_id, - addParents=target_drive_id, - removeParents=parent_to_remove, - supportsAllDrives=True, - ) - Comment/Issue: - The `update_file_metadata_or_content` function is called with a `supportsAllDrives` parameter - However, the API documentation for this function does not list `supportsAllDrives` as a valid parameter - The valid optional parameters are `body`, `media_body`, `addParents`, `enforceSingleParent`, `removeParents`, and `includeLabels`. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the `supportsAllDrives` parameter from the function call as it is not supported by the `update_file_metadata_or_content` API. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - new_file_name = "Sample Report" - Comment/Issue: - The variable `new_file_name` is assigned the value "Sample Report" - The term "Sample" is a common placeholder and indicates that this is likely test or dummy data rather than realistic business data. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace "Sample Report" with a more realistic file name, such as "Q1_Financial_Summary.pdf" or "Marketing_Analysis_March.docx". - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - project_report_drives = [drive for drive in project_report_drives_all if drive.get('name') == PROJECT_REPORT_DRIVE_NAME] - Comment/Issue: - The code first uses the `q` parameter in `gdrive.list_user_shared_drives` to filter for drives by name, and then filters the results again in Python for the exact same name - This second filtering step is redundant because the API's `q` parameter with an `=` operator is expected to perform an exact match. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant list comprehension and directly use the result from the API call. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - exact_matching_events = [event for event in matching_events if event.get('summary') == EVENT_SUMMARY] - Comment/Issue: - The code filters the results from the `google_calendar.list_events` API call a second time in Python - The initial call already uses the `q` parameter to filter by the event summary - The subsequent list comprehension is redundant as it checks for the same condition. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant list comprehension and use the results from the API call directly - The `matching_events` variable already holds the filtered list. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - exact_matching_events = [event for event in matching_events if compare_strings(event.get('summary'), EVENT_SUMMARY)] - Comment/Issue: - The code first queries for events using the `q` parameter in `google_calendar.list_events` - It then filters the results again using a Python list comprehension to check for the exact same summary - This secondary filtering is redundant because the initial API call with the `q` parameter is intended to perform this filtering. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant list comprehension - The `matching_events` variable, which holds the result from the API call, can be used directly for the assertion. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - modified_time = file_info['modifiedTime'] - Comment/Issue: - The code uses direct dictionary key access `file_info['modifiedTime']` which can raise a `KeyError` if the 'modifiedTime' key is not present in a file's metadata - The API documentation for `list_user_files` does not explicitly guarantee the presence of this key in every file object returned - A safer approach would be to use the `.get()` method to avoid potential KeyErrors. - Suggested Fixes: - modified_time = file_info.get('modifiedTime') - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - actual_start_time_clean = actual_start_time.split('+')[0].split('Z')[0] - Comment/Issue: - The code retrieves the 'dateTime' from an event's start time using `event_start_info.get('dateTime')` - According to the API documentation for `get_event` and `list_events`, an event's start time is represented by either a 'date' field (for all-day events) or a 'dateTime' field - If the event is an all-day event, `get('dateTime')` will return `None` - The subsequent line `actual_start_time.split('+')` will then raise an `AttributeError` because it attempts to call `.split()` on a `None` object - The code does not handle the case of an all-day event. - Suggested Fixes: - if not actual_start_time: assert False, f"Event '{EVENT_SUMMARY}' does not have a specific start time (dateTime)." actual_start_time_clean = actual_start_time.split('+')[0].split('Z')[0] - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - if drive.get('name') == PROJECT_REPORT_DRIVE_NAME - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the `==` operator for a string comparison - According to the guidelines, the `compare_strings` utility function should be used for case-insensitive and whitespace-agnostic comparisons. - Suggested Fixes: - if compare_strings(drive.get('name'), PROJECT_REPORT_DRIVE_NAME) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - project_report_old_files = [f for f in all_project_report_files if is_before_threshold(f.get('modifiedTime', ''), MODIFICATION_DATE_THRESHOLD)] - Comment/Issue: - The code defines and uses a custom helper function `is_before_threshold` to compare datetime strings - The correct approach is to parse these strings into datetime objects and then use the provided `compare_datetimes` utility function. - Suggested Fixes: - Parse the datetime strings into datetime objects and then use `compare_datetimes(modified_time_dt, threshold_dt, 'lt')` to perform the comparison. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert is_before_threshold(modified_time, MODIFICATION_DATE_THRESHOLD) - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the custom helper function `is_before_threshold` for datetime string comparison inside a loop - The standard approach should be to parse the strings into datetime objects and then use the `compare_datetimes` utility function. - Suggested Fixes: - Parse the datetime strings into datetime objects and then use `compare_datetimes(modified_time_dt, threshold_dt, 'lt')` to perform the comparison. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - if cal.get('summary') == TEAM_CALENDAR_NAME - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the `==` operator for a string comparison to find a calendar - The `compare_strings` utility function should be used for this purpose to ensure a case-insensitive and whitespace-agnostic comparison. - Suggested Fixes: - if compare_strings(cal.get('summary'), TEAM_CALENDAR_NAME) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - if event.get('summary') == EVENT_SUMMARY - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the `==` operator to filter calendar events by their summary - This string comparison should be performed using the `compare_strings` utility function. - Suggested Fixes: - if compare_strings(event.get('summary'), EVENT_SUMMARY) - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - does not exists - Comment/Issue: - The verb 'exists' is grammatically incorrect when used with the plural or singular third-person subject 'event' - The correct form of the verb is 'exist'. - Suggested Fixes: - does not exist - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Review" . - Comment/Issue: - There is an unnecessary space before the period at the end of the sentence, which is a punctuation error. - Suggested Fixes: - Review". - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Review" . - Comment/Issue: - There is an unnecessary space before the period at the end of the sentence, which is a punctuation error. - Suggested Fixes: - Review". - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - calendar_name: "Team" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable `calendar_name` is defined in the Query block but is only used in one code block (Action, Block 17) - The guideline requires it to be referenced in at least two distinct code blocks - In other blocks (DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Final Assertions), variables with different names (`team_calendar_name`, `TEAM_CALENDAR_NAME`) are used for the same value, which does not meet the exact name match criteria. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - event_summary: "Q1 Project Reports Review" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable `event_summary` is defined in the Query block but is only used in one code block (Action, Block 17) - The guideline requires it to be referenced in at least two distinct code blocks - In other blocks (Initial Assertions, Final Assertions), a variable with a different name (`EVENT_SUMMARY`) is used for the same value, which does not meet the exact name match criteria. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - modification_date_cutoff_str: "2025-03-31T00:00:00" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable `modification_date_cutoff_str` with the value "2025-03-31T00:00:00" is defined in the Query block but is never used with its exact name and value - In the Action block (Block 17), a variable with the same name is declared but with a different value ("2025-03-31T00:00:00Z") - The guideline requires an exact match for both name and value. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - expected_event_start_str: "2025-04-10T15:00:00" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable `expected_event_start_str` with the value "2025-04-10T15:00:00" is defined in the Query block but is never used with its exact name and value - In the Action block (Block 17), a variable with the same name is declared but with a different value ("2025-04-10T15:00:00Z") - The guideline requires an exact match for both name and value. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - expected_event_end_str = "2025-04-10T16:00:00" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable `expected_event_end_str` with the value "2025-04-10T16:00:00" is defined in the Query block but is never used with its exact name and value - In the Action block (Block 17), a variable with the same name is declared but with a different value ("2025-04-10T16:00:00Z") - The guideline requires an exact match for both name and value. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # --- Step 1: Find Source Drive ID --- - source_drive_list_response = gdrive.list_user_shared_drives(q=f"name = '{source_folder_name}'") - source_drives = source_drive_list_response.get('drives', []) - source_drive_id = source_drives[0].get('id') - print(f"Found source drive '{source_folder_name}' with ID: {source_drive_id}") - # --- Step 2: Find Target Drive ID --- - target_drive_list_response = gdrive.list_user_shared_drives(q=f"name = '{destination_folder_name}'") - target_drives = target_drive_list_response.get('drives', []) - # The query implies moving files *to* a drive named "Q1 Project Reports". - target_drive_id = target_drives[0].get('id') - print(f"Found target drive '{destination_folder_name}' with ID: {target_drive_id}") - Comment/Issue: - The code block for finding the source drive ID is structurally identical to the code block for finding the target drive ID - Both blocks call `gdrive.list_user_shared_drives`, get the 'drives' list from the response, and then extract the 'id' of the first item - This repeated logic is functionally redundant and could be encapsulated in a helper function to improve code conciseness and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - Consolidate the repeated logic for finding a drive ID into a single helper function - For example: `def get_drive_id_by_name(name): response = gdrive.list_user_shared_drives(q=f'name = \'{name}\''); drives = response.get('drives', []); return drives[0].get('id') if drives else None` - Then call this function for both the source and target drives. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - expected_event_end_str = "2025-04-10T16:00:00" - Comment/Issue: - The user query only specifies the start time for the Google Calendar event as "April 10, 2025, at 3 PM" and does not mention any duration or end time - The global variable `expected_event_end_str` is set to "2025-04-10T16:00:00", which hardcodes an assumption that the event will have a duration of one hour - This detail is not available in the query or the case description. - Suggested Fixes: - The event's end time or duration should be included in the query or case description - If the duration is meant to be a default (e.g., 1 hour), this should be explicitly stated as an acceptable default assumption in the test design. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Sample Ambiguity failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - move them to an empty drive named "Q1 Project Reports" - Comment/Issue: - The query instructs the agent to move files to a destination drive that is described as 'empty' ('move them to an empty drive named "Q1 Project Reports"') - However, the Case Description explicitly states that this drive 'is not empty' - This creates an ambiguity in how the agent should behave - Plausible interpretations include: 1) The agent should ignore the 'empty' descriptor and proceed with the rest of the tasks - 2) The agent should stop and report an error because a stated precondition is not met - The Final Assertions only validate the first outcome (creating a calendar event), failing to account for the other plausible interpretations arising from the conflicting instructions. - Suggested Fixes: - To resolve the ambiguity, either the query should be changed to not describe the drive as 'empty', or the DB Initialization should create an empty 'Q1 Project Reports' drive to match the query's precondition. - Verdict: failed | |||||
| a4ac8141-36de-4953-a8d3-bdb35c521d91 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/725_base/Agent-725_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-725_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/725_base/Agent-725_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | rahulsingh-turtle | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:56:47 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/fda9e0f24783e85abdb412d876fa61dcbb36521c | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - Channel_Messages = [ - { - "user": "Jordan Burges", - "text": "Hey team, welcome to our new #volunteer_updates_channel. Let’s use this space to coordinate all tasks for our MLOps pipeline.", - "ts": "1740787231.0", - }, - { - "user": "Sam Allen", - "text": "Morning, everyone! To get started, I’ve pushed a basic Dockerfile and a training script to the repo. Let me know if you have any feedback.", - "ts": "1740963739.0", - }, - { - "user": "William Gant", - "text": "Thanks, team. I am in, Happy to help.", - "ts": "1741054425.0", - }, - { - "user": "Carlos Mendes", - "text": "Agreed. We can look into Community Cleanup Drive, Count me as well!", - "ts": "1741230068.0", - }, - { - "user": "Melissa Chang", - "text": "I’m fine with MLflow. I have a proof-of-concept script I can share. As for S3, we already have a dev bucket set up—just let me know the naming convention.", - "ts": "1741403739.0", - }, - { - "user": "Akash Patel", - "text": "Sounds good. I’ll finish refining the Docker image to include MLflow. Once that’s done, we can run a quick test on a small dataset.", - "ts": "1741495343.0", - }, - { - "user": "Pedro Dias", - "text": "Awesome. Also, we should think about the CI/CD pipeline. Are we still using GitLab, or do we want to explore GitHub Actions?", - "ts": "1741669199.0", - }, - { - "user": "Samuel Alejandro", - "text": "Let’s stick with GitLab for now; we already have some runners configured. After we get the main pipeline stable, we can evaluate GitHub Actions as well.", - "ts": "1741843800.0", - }, - { - "user": "James Stuart", - "text": "I just set up a GitLab pipeline that builds the Docker image and runs basic unit tests on the training script. If you see anything off, let me know.", - "ts": "1742191258.0", - }, - { - "user": "William Gant", - "text": "Great job. I’ll start integrating Helm charts for deployment on Kubernetes. We can keep track of versions in the chart and push them from GitLab.", - "ts": "1742278515.0", - }, - { - "user": "Lucas Highland", - "text": "I’ll connect the pipeline with S3 now. Make sure to include environment variables for the S3 bucket in the Helm chart so everything is consistent.", - "ts": "1742543110.0", - }, - { - "user": "Amanda Ruiz", - "text": "Morning, everyone! Just a reminder: let’s meet at 1 PM today to finalize the details on artifact storage and the tracking server config.", - "ts": "1742857353.0", - }, - { - "user": "Jessica Park", - "text": "Hey all, quick note: I updated the training script to log hyperparameters and metrics to MLflow. Please pull the latest changes before your next run.", - "ts": "1743034307.0", - }, - { - "user": "Ravier Santos", - "text": "Pulled and tested. Works great! The metrics appear in MLflow. Next, we should discuss how to handle model versioning. Let’s chat about that in the next meeting.", - "ts": "1743386345.0", - }, - { - "user": "Juan Mark", - "text": "Excellent work, everyone! The MLOps pipeline is officially complete. Congratulations on shipping our first end-to-end model deployment!", - "ts": "1743567321.0", - }, - ] - Comment/Issue: - The messages being initialized in the 'volunteer-updates' Slack channel are predominantly about an 'MLOps pipeline', which is completely unrelated to the query's subject of a 'Community Cleanup Drive' - This makes the data unrealistic for the given context and function as placeholder/dummy content. - Suggested Fixes: - The content of the Slack messages should be relevant to the 'Community Cleanup Drive' to be realistic - Messages should be about volunteering, asking for details, or confirming participation. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - files = (gdrive.list_user_files(q=f"name='{volunteer_list_file_name}' and trashed=false") or {}).get("files", []) - file_exists = any(compare_strings(f.get("name",""), volunteer_list_file_name) for f in files) - assert file_exists, "Assertion 2 Failed: Expected Google Drive to contain an item named 'volunteer-list-2024'." - Comment/Issue: - The `gdrive.list_user_files` call is already filtering for files with the exact name `volunteer-list-file-name` - The subsequent loop to check the name again is redundant - A simpler and more direct assertion would be `assert files, "..."` or `assert len(files) > 0, "..."`. - Suggested Fixes: - assert files, "Assertion 2 Failed: Expected Google Drive to contain an item named 'volunteer-list-2024'." - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - final_files = (gdrive.list_user_files(q=f"name='{volunteer_list_file_name}' and trashed=false") or {}).get("files", []) - none_left = not any(compare_strings(f.get("name",""), volunteer_list_file_name) for f in final_files) - assert none_left, "Assertion Failed: Expected no non-trashed Google Drive item named 'volunteer-list-2024' to remain." - Comment/Issue: - The `gdrive.list_user_files` call already filters for files with the name `volunteer-list-file-name` - The subsequent loop to check the name again is redundant - A simpler check for non-existence would be `assert not final_files, "..."` or `assert len(final_files) == 0, "..."`. - Suggested Fixes: - assert not final_files, "Assertion Failed: Expected no non-trashed Google Drive item named 'volunteer-list-2024' to remain." - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - file_exists = any(compare_strings(f.get("name",""), volunteer_list_file_name) for f in files) - Comment/Issue: - The code manually implements the logic of checking if any item in a list matches a given string using a generator expression with `any()` - This functionality is provided by the `compare_is_list_subset` utility function with `list_comparison_function='any'`, which should be used instead. - Suggested Fixes: - file_names = [f.get("name", "") for f in files] file_exists = compare_is_list_subset(volunteer_list_file_name, file_names, list_comparison_function="any") - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - none_left = not any(compare_strings(f.get("name",""), volunteer_list_file_name) for f in final_files) - Comment/Issue: - The code manually implements the logic of checking if any item in a list matches a given string using a generator expression with `any()`, and then negates the result - This functionality is provided by the `compare_is_list_subset` utility function with `list_comparison_function='any'`, which should be used instead. - Suggested Fixes: - final_file_names = [f.get("name", "") for f in final_files] none_left = not compare_is_list_subset(volunteer_list_file_name, final_file_names, list_comparison_function="any") - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - initiate - Comment/Issue: - The word 'initiate' is used in the block title - In a programming context, the verb 'initialize' is more standard and precise for setting up databases or variables. - Suggested Fixes: - initialize - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - Agreed. We can look into Community Cleanup Drive, Count me as well! - Comment/Issue: - The text contains a comma splice - A comma is incorrectly used to join two independent clauses ('We can look into Community Cleanup Drive' and 'Count me as well!'). - Suggested Fixes: - Agreed - We can look into Community Cleanup Drive - Count me in as well! - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - slack_message_start = "List of volunteers who agreed to participate in the Community Cleanup Drive:" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'slack_message_start' is defined in the Query & Metadata block but is never declared or used in any of the subsequent code blocks (DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Action, Final Assertions) - A similar string is hardcoded in the action block (Block 18) - To adhere to the guideline, the variable must be explicitly declared and referenced in at least two distinct code blocks. - Suggested Fixes: - Declare the variable `slack_message_start` with its specified value and use it in the action block (Block 18) to construct the message text, instead of hardcoding the string - Ensure it is used in at least one other block as well to meet the two-block requirement. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - slack.list_channels() - Comment/Issue: - The query provides the exact Slack channel name ('volunteer-updates') - Therefore, listing all channels to find it is an unnecessary step - The agent should use the provided channel name directly for subsequent operations. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - slack.post_chat_message( - channel="C426ABC3D", - text="List of volunteers who agreed to participate in the Community Cleanup Drive:\nCarlos Mendes" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The agent was required to first read the Slack channel to identify volunteers and check if a list was already posted - It skipped these steps and directly posted a message with a hallucinated volunteer name ('Carlos Mendes') to a hardcoded channel ID ('C426ABC3D') - This represents an illogical sequence as it performs the final action without gathering the necessary information first. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - gdrive.delete_file_permanently("file_3") - Comment/Issue: - The previous step (Block 20) was intended to find the file ID for 'volunteer-list-2024' - However, this step uses a hardcoded, static ID ('file_3') for the deletion, completely ignoring the output from the search - The agent should have dynamically used the file ID retrieved from the `gdrive.list_user_files` call. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Sample Ambiguity failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - from Scripts.assertions_utils import * - import gdrive - volunteer_list_file_name = "volunteer-list-2024" - # --- Final Assertion --- - final_files = (gdrive.list_user_files(q=f"name='{volunteer_list_file_name}' and trashed=false") or {}).get("files", []) - none_left = not any(compare_strings(f.get("name",""), volunteer_list_file_name) for f in final_files) - assert none_left, "Assertion Failed: Expected no non-trashed Google Drive item named 'volunteer-list-2024' to remain." - Comment/Issue: - The query asks the agent to identify volunteers who 'explicitly agreed' to participate in an event - This phrasing is ambiguous because what constitutes an 'explicit agreement' can be interpreted differently from the provided Slack messages - For instance, one user says 'I am in, Happy to help' without mentioning the event, while another says 'Count me as well!' after mentioning the event - An agent could plausibly identify one or both as volunteers - The final assertions only validate a secondary task (deleting a GDrive file) and completely ignore the primary, ambiguous task of posting the volunteer list to Slack - This fails to guard against the different plausible outcomes of the ambiguity. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertions should be updated to validate the primary action - They should check that a message was posted to the 'volunteer-updates' Slack channel and verify that its content includes the list of correctly identified volunteers - This would ensure the agent's interpretation of the ambiguous request is validated. - Verdict: failed | ||||||||
| 71eec405-74e6-46f5-869d-18b2df6f0bf7 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/414_edge_2/Agent-414_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | Agent-414_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/414_edge_2/Agent-414_edge_2-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | turing-V1-dev | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:56:05 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/15fac81d53279c3bf0c6577ecbd6406c0841611a | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - updated = google_calendar.patch_calendar_list_entry( - calendarId=cal_id, - resource=resource - ) - Comment/Issue: - The `resource` dictionary passed to `google_calendar.patch_calendar_list_entry` contains the keys 'id' and 'primary', which are not documented as part of the `resource` parameter for this function - According to the API documentation, the `resource` parameter for `patch_calendar_list_entry` only supports 'summary', 'description', and 'timeZone'. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the undocumented keys 'id' and 'primary' from the `resource` dictionary - The `resource` should only contain keys that are specified in the API documentation for the `patch_calendar_list_entry` function. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert not compare_strings(current_description, INITIAL_COMPONENT_DESCRIPTION), \ - f"Expected component description to be updated from initial state '{INITIAL_COMPONENT_DESCRIPTION}', " \ - f"but it still has the initial description. The action block may not have executed correctly." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion incorrectly verifies that the component description is *not* equal to a hardcoded initial value (`"Payment gateway processing."`) which is not defined in the Query or Case Description - The primary goal of the final assertion, based on the query, should be to confirm that the description was updated *to* the new target value (`"Handles all online payment processing and security updates."`) - This assertion fails to validate the successful completion of the task and relies on an unsupported hardcoded value. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be changed to verify that the current description matches the target description specified in the query - For example: `assert compare_strings(current_description, "Handles all online payment processing and security updates.")` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert len(found_projects) == 1, f"Expected exactly one project '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}', found {len(found_projects)}." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion that exactly one project named 'ShopSmart' exists is present in both the initial and final assertion blocks - The final assertion block should only validate the changes made by the action, and re-validating the existence of the project (which was already confirmed in the initial state) is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert len(found_components) == 1, f"Expected exactly one component '{COMPONENT_NAME}' to exist in project '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}', found {len(found_components)}." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion that exactly one component named 'Payment Gateway' exists is present in both the initial and final assertion blocks - Since the initial assertion block already confirmed the component's existence, repeating this check in the final assertion block is redundant - The final assertions should focus on the state change (like the description update), not re-verifying the setup. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert payment_gateway_component_id != "", \ - f"Expected component '{COMPONENT_NAME}' to exist in project '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}', but it was not found." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert payment_gateway_component_id != ""` is redundant - The preceding assertion, `assert len(found_components) == 1`, has already confirmed the existence of the component - If the component exists, it is guaranteed to have a non-empty ID, making this second check unnecessary. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this assertion as the component's existence is already verified by the `assert len(found_components) == 1` check immediately before it. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Correct Assertion Message failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert payment_gateway_component_id != "", \ - f"Expected component '{COMPONENT_NAME}' to exist in project '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}', but it was not found." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert payment_gateway_component_id != ""` checks if the component's ID is a non-empty string - However, the failure message `...but it was not found` incorrectly implies that the component itself was not found - This is logically inconsistent because the preceding assertion `assert len(found_components) == 1` already confirms that the component was found - The failure condition is a missing ID, not a missing component. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion message should reflect the actual condition being checked - A better message would be: f"Component '{COMPONENT_NAME}' was found in project '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}', but it is missing a valid 'id'." - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - if didn't exist - Comment/Issue: - The phrase "if didn't exist" is grammatically incorrect - A more appropriate phrasing would be "if it does not already exist" or "if one does not exist". - Suggested Fixes: - if it does not already exist - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - which begin at - Comment/Issue: - The verb 'begin' does not agree with its singular subject 'event' - The correct form is 'begins'. - Suggested Fixes: - which begins at - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - # Apply after DBs are initiated - Comment/Issue: - The word 'initiated' in the code comment is a typo - It should be 'initialized'. - Suggested Fixes: - # Apply after DBs are initialized - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - EVENT_START_TIME = "2025-05-28T14:00:00" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'EVENT_START_TIME' with the value '2025-05-28T14:00:00' is only defined and used in one block (Block 10) - The guideline requires it to be defined and used in at least two distinct blocks - Other blocks (13 and 15) define a variable with the same name but a different, timezone-aware value ('2025-05-28T14:00:00+00:00'), which does not count as a match. - Suggested Fixes: - Ensure the variable 'EVENT_START_TIME' with the exact value '2025-05-28T14:00:00' is declared and used in at least two code blocks, or update the value in the Query & Metadata block to match its usage in the code (e.g., '2025-05-28T14:00:00+00:00'). - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - meeting_hour = 1 - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'meeting_hour' is defined in the Query & Metadata block, but a variable with this exact name is never declared or used in any of the code blocks (DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Action, Final Assertions) - The code uses a variable with a different name, 'MEETING_HOURS', instead. - Suggested Fixes: - Rename the variable 'meeting_hour' in the Query & Metadata block to 'MEETING_HOURS' to match the name used in the code blocks, or update the code to use 'meeting_hour' consistently. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - shop_smart_project = None - try: - jira_projects = jira.get_all_projects() or {} - for project in (jira_projects.get("projects") or []): - if project.get("name") == JIRA_PROJECT_NAME: - shop_smart_project = project - break - except Exception: - shop_smart_project = None - if shop_smart_project: - try: - components = jira.get_project_components_by_key(project_key=shop_smart_project.get("key")) or {} - target_component = None - for component in (components.get("components") or []): - if component.get("name") == COMPONENT_NAME: - target_component = component - break - # ... [omitted for brevity] - try: - calendar_lists = google_calendar.list_calendar_list_entries() or {} - target_calendar = None - for cal in (calendar_lists.get("items") or []): - if cal.get("summary") == CALENDAR_NAME: - target_calendar = cal - break - if target_calendar: - events = google_calendar.list_events(calendarId=target_calendar.get("id")) or {} - target_event = None - for ev in (events.get("items") or []): - if ev.get("summary") == EVENT_NAME: - target_event = ev - break - Comment/Issue: - The code block exhibits structural repetition in how it searches for items within lists - The logic of iterating through a list of dictionaries to find an item with a specific 'name' or 'summary' is duplicated four times: for finding the Jira project, the Jira component, the Google Calendar, and the calendar event - This repetitive pattern can be abstracted into a single helper function to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - Consolidate the repeated search logic into a helper function - This function could accept a list of items, the key to search by (e.g., 'name' or 'summary'), and the target value - It would return the first matching item or None, thereby eliminating the need for four separate, nearly identical loops. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Hardcoded Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - INITIAL_COMPONENT_DESCRIPTION = "Payment gateway processing." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion checks that the component description is no longer the initial value, "Payment gateway processing." - However, this specific initial value is not mentioned in the query or the case description - It is a hardcoded string assumed to be the initial state, only appearing in the DB initialization script - A more robust assertion would verify that the description matches the new value provided in the query. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should verify that the component's description matches the new description provided in the query and global variables, which is "Handles all online payment processing and security updates.", rather than checking against a hardcoded initial value. - Verdict: failed | ||||||
| fc0d8108-7e92-47b4-91d4-818b55b20131 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/1241_base/Agent-1241_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-1241_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/1241_base/Agent-1241_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | vishnutiwari-123 | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:54:30 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/0bd7dc24aebb0f1ea8b2d1e29e00648748de026e | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - spaces = confluence.get_spaces() - training_space = next((s for s in spaces if compare_strings(s.get("spaceKey"), confluence_space_key)), None) - assert training_space, f"Confluence space '{confluence_space_key}' not found" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion that checks for the existence of the Confluence space with the key 'TRAINING' is present in both the initial and final assertion blocks - The agent's action is to create pages within this space, not to create or delete the space itself - Therefore, its existence is a precondition that should only be verified in the initial assertions - Repeating this check in the final assertions is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert training_space, f"Confluence space '{confluence_space_key}' not found" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert training_space, f"Confluence space '{confluence_space_key}' not found"` re-verifies the existence of the Confluence space, which was already confirmed in the Initial Assertions (Block 13) - Since the action's purpose is to create pages within this space, not to delete the space itself, this check is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the redundant assertion - The existence of the space is a precondition established by the initial assertions. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - qualified_events = [ - ev for ev in salesforce_events - if ev.get("Subject", "").strip() # ensure subject is non-empty - and compare_is_string_subset(scouting_keyword, ev.get("Subject", "")) - and ev.get("Description", "").strip().lower() - and compare_datetimes(next_monday, datetime.fromisoformat(ev.get("StartDateTime")), "lte") - and compare_datetimes(datetime.fromisoformat(ev.get("StartDateTime")), next_sunday, "lte") - ] - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `datetime.fromisoformat(ev.get("StartDateTime"))` within a list comprehension that filters Salesforce events - The `StartDateTime` field is optional for an event, so if an event record is missing this key, `ev.get("StartDateTime")` will return `None` - Passing `None` to `datetime.fromisoformat` will raise a `TypeError`, which is not an `AssertionError` - Additionally, if `salesforce.query_events()` returns an empty dictionary, `salesforce.query_events().get("results")` will evaluate to `None`, and attempting to iterate over `None` in `for ev in salesforce_events` will also raise a `TypeError`. - Suggested Fixes: - Add a check to ensure that `ev.get("StartDateTime")` returns a valid string before calling `datetime.fromisoformat` - Also, handle the case where `salesforce_events` might be `None` after the `.get("results")` call to prevent iteration over a `NoneType` object. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - and compare_datetimes(next_monday, _parse_iso(ev.get("StartDateTime")), "lte") - and compare_datetimes(_parse_iso(ev.get("StartDateTime")), next_sunday, "lte") - Comment/Issue: - In the list comprehension for `qualified_events`, the code calls the helper function `_parse_iso(ev.get("StartDateTime"))` - According to the API documentation, the `StartDateTime` field is optional for an event - If an event is missing this field, `ev.get("StartDateTime")` will return `None` - The `_parse_iso` function does not handle a `None` input; its first operation is `dt_str.replace(...)`, which will raise an `AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'replace'` - This error is not an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - Before calling `_parse_iso`, the code should verify that `ev.get("StartDateTime")` is not `None` - Alternatively, the `_parse_iso` function can be modified to safely handle `None` inputs, for instance, by returning `None` and letting the calling logic handle it. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - atleast - Comment/Issue: - The word 'atleast' is a common misspelling of the two-word phrase 'at least'. - Suggested Fixes: - at least - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - Outgoind - Comment/Issue: - The word 'Outgoind' is a spelling mistake - The correct spelling is 'Outgoing'. - Suggested Fixes: - Outgoing - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - Outgoind traffic network route planning - Comment/Issue: - The word 'Outgoind' is a spelling mistake - The correct spelling is 'Outgoing' - This error appears in the output text generated by the preceding code block. - Suggested Fixes: - Outgoing traffic network route planning - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - confluence.get_spaces() - Comment/Issue: - The Confluence space key 'TRAINING' is already provided in the global context variables - Therefore, calling `confluence.get_spaces()` to list all available spaces is redundant and unnecessary, as the exact location for page creation is already known. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the `confluence.get_spaces()` API call and use the provided `confluence_space_key` variable directly when creating the pages. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - confluence.create_content({ - "type": "page", - "title": "Training Session – 2025-05-05T09:00:00Z", - "spaceKey": "TRAINING", - "body": { - "storage": { - "value": "Orientation overview for all new hires joining in Q2.", - "representation": "storage" - } - } - }) - Comment/Issue: - The call to `confluence.create_content` is structurally repeated across three separate blocks (20, 22, and 24) - Each call uses a hardcoded dictionary that follows the exact same template, with only the `title` and `body.storage.value` being different - This pattern of manually creating individual items that could be generated programmatically is functionally redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of hardcoding the creation of each page in a separate cell, the agent should have fetched the relevant Salesforce events and then iterated through them in a loop - A single `confluence.create_content` call within the loop could then dynamically generate the title and body for each page based on the event's data. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - confluence.create_content({ - "type": "page", - "title": "Training Session – 2025-05-07T14:00:00Z", - "spaceKey": "TRAINING", - "body": { - "storage": { - "value": "Detailed planning for the technical skills onboarding module.", - "representation": "storage" - } - } - }) - Comment/Issue: - The call to `confluence.create_content` is structurally repeated across three separate blocks (20, 22, and 24) - Each call uses a hardcoded dictionary that follows the exact same template, with only the `title` and `body.storage.value` being different - This pattern of manually creating individual items that could be generated programmatically is functionally redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of hardcoding the creation of each page in a separate cell, the agent should have fetched the relevant Salesforce events and then iterated through them in a loop - A single `confluence.create_content` call within the loop could then dynamically generate the title and body for each page based on the event's data. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - confluence.create_content({ - "type": "page", - "title": "Training Session – 2025-05-10T10:30:00Z", - "spaceKey": "TRAINING", - "body": { - "storage": { - "value": "Post-training evaluation and knowledge gap identification.", - "representation": "storage" - } - } - }) - Comment/Issue: - The call to `confluence.create_content` is structurally repeated across three separate blocks (20, 22, and 24) - Each call uses a hardcoded dictionary that follows the exact same template, with only the `title` and `body.storage.value` being different - This pattern of manually creating individual items that could be generated programmatically is functionally redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of hardcoding the creation of each page in a separate cell, the agent should have fetched the relevant Salesforce events and then iterated through them in a loop - A single `confluence.create_content` call within the loop could then dynamically generate the title and body for each page based on the event's data. - Verdict: failed | |||||||||
| bcbd0331-6359-48bf-9938-1c361af12e37 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/351_base/Agent-351_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-351_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/351_base/Agent-351_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | muhammadf1-ui | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:53:51 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/4e9161361efafb1d11b7c99327e67de742c7e996 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert drafts.get("drafts"), "No Gmail drafts found." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion only checks for the existence of any Gmail draft, but the query explicitly requires a draft to a specific recipient ('Emma Jones') with a specific subject ('Access Granted: Project Roadmap') - This assertion fails to verify these crucial details and therefore does not properly validate that the agent completed the task as specified. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be strengthened to check for a draft sent to 'emma.jones@trg.com' with the subject 'Access Granted: Project Roadmap' - This can be done by listing drafts with a query and asserting that at least one match is found, similar to the logic in the Initial Assertion block. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert history.get("messages"), f"No messages found in Slack channel '{slack_channel_name}'." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion only checks for the existence of any message in the Slack channel - The query, however, requires a specific notification message with content like 'Emma Jones has been granted editor access to \'Project Roadmap.pdf\'' - This assertion does not validate the content of the message, making it an insufficient check of the agent's action. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be improved to iterate through the message history and check if any message contains the expected text, 'Emma Jones has been granted editor access to \'Project Roadmap.pdf\'' - Using a substring match would make the check robust. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert drafts.get("drafts"), "No Gmail drafts found." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion is considered trivial because it only checks if any draft exists, not the specific draft that the action was supposed to create - It doesn't verify the draft's recipient or subject, making it an insufficient check of the agent's successful operation as described in the markdown. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be strengthened to check for the specific draft's content, such as its subject ('Access Granted: Project Roadmap') and recipient ('emma.jones@trg.com'), to properly validate the action's outcome. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert history.get("messages"), f"No messages found in Slack channel '{slack_channel_name}'." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion is trivial because it only confirms the existence of any message in the channel, rather than verifying the content of the specific message that should have been posted - This is too weak a check to confirm the agent successfully completed its task as described in the markdown. - Suggested Fixes: - The assertion should be improved to inspect the content of the messages in the channel's history to ensure the specific expected message, "Emma Jones has been granted editor access to 'Project Roadmap.pdf'.", is present. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - draft_detail = gmail.get_draft(userId='me', id=draft_id) - message = draft_detail.get('message', {}) - Comment/Issue: - The `gmail.get_draft` function can return `None` if the specified draft ID does not exist - The following line, `message = draft_detail.get('message', {})`, attempts to call the `.get()` method directly on the result - If `draft_detail` is `None`, this will raise an `AttributeError`, which is not an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - Add a check to ensure `draft_detail` is not `None` before attempting to access its methods - For example: `if draft_detail: ...` or handle it within an assertion `assert draft_detail is not None, ...`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - file_id = next((f.get("id") for f in files if compare_strings(f.get("name", ""), file_name)), None) - permissions = gdrive.list_permissions(fileId=file_id) - Comment/Issue: - The `next()` function is used to find `file_id`, with a default of `None` if no file is found - This `None` value could then be passed to `gdrive.list_permissions(fileId=file_id)` - According to the API documentation, the `fileId` parameter must be a string, so passing `None` will raise a `TypeError` instead of an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - Add an assertion to check that `file_id` is not `None` before it is used in the `gdrive.list_permissions` call - For example: `assert file_id, f"File '{file_name}' not found."` - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - channel_id = next( - (ch.get("id") for ch in channels.get("channels", []) if compare_strings(ch.get("name", ""), slack_channel_name)), - None - ) - history = slack.get_conversation_history(channel=channel_id) - Comment/Issue: - The `next()` function is used to find `channel_id`, with a default of `None` if no channel is found - This `None` value could then be passed to `slack.get_conversation_history(channel=channel_id)` - The API documentation specifies that the `channel` parameter must be a string, so passing `None` will raise a `TypeError` instead of an `AssertionError`. - Suggested Fixes: - Add an assertion to ensure `channel_id` is not `None` before it is passed to the `slack.get_conversation_history` function - For example: `assert channel_id, f"Channel '{slack_channel_name}' not found."`. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - h["name"].lower() == "subject" - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive string comparison using `.lower() ==` - The utility function `compare_strings` is designed for this purpose and should be used instead for consistency and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - compare_strings(h["name"], "subject") - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - h["name"].lower() == "to" - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive string comparison using `.lower() ==` - The utility function `compare_strings` is designed for this purpose and should be used instead for consistency and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - compare_strings(h["name"], "to") - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - Roadmap".Finally, send a message - Comment/Issue: - The word 'Finally' should be preceded by a space after the period, to separate it from the preceding sentence. - Suggested Fixes: - Roadmap" - Finally, send a message - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - a gmail draft also needs to be generated and a slack message also needs to be sent - Comment/Issue: - The words 'gmail' and 'slack' are proper nouns referring to specific services and should be capitalized as 'Gmail' and 'Slack'. - Suggested Fixes: - a Gmail draft also needs to be generated and a Slack message also needs to be sent - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - # Define the context variables for the workflow. - Comment/Issue: - There is an unnecessary double space between the words 'variables' and 'for' in the code comment. - Suggested Fixes: - # Define the context variables for the workflow. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Assert that Emma Jones (emma.jones@trg.com) is user in slack. - Comment/Issue: - 'slack' should be capitalized as it is a proper noun - The phrase 'is user' is grammatically incorrect and should be 'is a user'. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that Emma Jones (emma.jones@trg.com) is a user in Slack. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Assert that Emma Jones (emma.jones@trg.com) is member of slack channel named 'project-updates'. - Comment/Issue: - 'slack' should be capitalized as it is a proper noun - The phrase 'is member' is grammatically incorrect and should be 'is a member of the'. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that Emma Jones (emma.jones@trg.com) is a member of the Slack channel named 'project-updates'. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action markdown - Issue Around: - of which emma is member - Comment/Issue: - The name 'emma' should be capitalized - The phrase 'is member' is grammatically incorrect and should be 'is a member'. - Suggested Fixes: - of which Emma is a member - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - addressed emma.jones@trg.com exists - Comment/Issue: - The preposition 'to' is missing after the verb 'addressed', which is required for the sentence to be grammatically correct. - Suggested Fixes: - addressed to emma.jones@trg.com exists - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - if isinstance(perms_response, dict) and 'permissions' in perms_response: - for perm in perms_response['permissions']: - if ( - str(perm.get('emailAddress', '')).strip().lower() == user_email.lower() - and str(perm.get('role', '')).strip().lower() == permission_role.lower() - ): - existing_permission = perm - break - else: - print(f"Warning: Invalid permissions response: {perms_response}") - if not existing_permission: - permission_body = { - 'type': permission_type, - 'role': permission_role, - 'emailAddress': user_email - } - create_perm_response = gdrive.create_permission( - fileId=file_id, - body=permission_body - ) - if not (isinstance(create_perm_response, dict) and 'id' in create_perm_response): - print(f"Error: Failed to create permission for '{user_email}' on file '{file_id}'. Response: {create_perm_response}") - else: - print(f"Successfully granted '{permission_role}' access to '{user_email}' for file '{file_id}'. Permission ID: {create_perm_response['id']}") - else: - print(f"Permission already exists for '{user_email}'.") - # ========= Step 3: Notification via Gmail and Slack ========= - # --- Check if a Gmail draft with the given subject already exists --- - drafts_response = gmail.list_drafts(q=f"to:{user_email} subject:'{draft_subject}'") - draft_exists = False - if isinstance(drafts_response, dict) and 'drafts' in drafts_response: - if drafts_response['drafts']: - draft_exists = True - else: - print(f"Warning: Invalid response from Gmail drafts.list: {drafts_response}") - # --- Get Slack channel ID --- - channels_response = slack.list_channels() - channel_id = None - if isinstance(channels_response, dict) and 'channels' in channels_response: - channels = channels_response['channels'] - matching_channels = [ch for ch in channels if ch.get('name') == slack_channel_name] - if len(matching_channels) == 1: - channel_id = matching_channels[0].get('id') - elif len(matching_channels) == 0: - print(f"Error: No channel found with name '{slack_channel_name}'.") - else: - print(f"Error: Multiple channels found with name '{slack_channel_name}'.") - else: - print(f"Error: Invalid response from Conversations.list_channels: {channels_response}") - # --- Check if the Slack message already exists --- - slack_message_exists = False - if channel_id: - history_response = slack.get_conversation_history(channel=channel_id) - if isinstance(history_response, dict) and 'messages' in history_response: - for msg in history_response['messages']: - if msg.get('text') == slack_message_text: - slack_message_exists = True - break - else: - print(f"Error: Invalid response from Conversations.history: {history_response}") - Comment/Issue: - The code repeatedly uses the same structural logic to validate responses from different API calls (gdrive.list_permissions, gmail.list_drafts, slack.list_channels, slack.get_conversation_history) - In each case, it checks if the response is a dictionary and if a specific key exists within it - This repetitive validation pattern can be consolidated into a single helper function to reduce redundancy and improve maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - Refactor the repeated API response validation logic (e.g., `isinstance(response, dict) and 'key' in response`) into a dedicated helper function - This function could take the response object and the expected key as arguments and return a boolean, simplifying the main logic flow. - Verdict: failed | |||||||||
| 21b82a15-b52e-49a9-99bb-796bae99aad1 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/1080_base/Agent-1080_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-1080_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/1080_base/Agent-1080_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | poovanna-vs | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:53:19 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/8715090b107b662e935e6479690b6c7f143eefcb | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - salesforce.query_events({"IsDeleted": False}) - Comment/Issue: - The `salesforce.query_events` function is called with a `criteria` dictionary containing the key 'IsDeleted' - According to the API documentation, the valid keys for the `criteria` parameter are 'Subject', 'IsAllDayEvent', 'StartDateTime', 'EndDateTime', 'Description', 'Location', and 'OwnerId' - The key 'IsDeleted' is not documented and is therefore an unsupported parameter. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the unsupported key 'IsDeleted' from the `criteria` dictionary - If the intention is to filter events, use one of the documented keys such as 'Subject' or 'StartDateTime' - The API does not provide a documented way to filter by deletion status in this function. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - "Subject": "Client Onboarding - ABC Corp", - "StartDateTime": (current_date + timedelta(days=2)).isoformat(), - "Description": "Initial onboarding meeting with ABC Corp team" - Comment/Issue: - The company name 'ABC Corp' uses the common placeholder pattern 'ABC', which is explicitly listed as a pattern to flag - This makes the data appear as a test or dummy entry rather than a realistic business scenario. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace 'ABC Corp' with a more plausible, non-placeholder company name, such as 'Innovate Inc.' or 'Solutions Ltd.' - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert folders, f"Folder '{source_folder_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion checks for the existence of the 'Meeting Notes' folder - This state was already validated in the initial assertions, and the agent's action is not expected to alter it - Re-asserting this is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert docs_in_folder, "No Google Docs found in the Meeting Notes folder." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion checks if any documents exist in the folder - This is an unnecessary preliminary check because the main final assertion already verifies that a correctly named document exists for each specific qualifying event - If no documents were created, the main assertion would fail with a more precise error message, making this general check redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - doc_id_by_name[event["Subject"]] = doc["id"] - Comment/Issue: - The code accesses the 'Subject' key of an event dictionary using bracket notation (`event["Subject"]`) - According to the Salesforce API documentation for event objects (e.g., `query_events`), the 'Subject' field is optional - If a qualifying event is processed that does not have a 'Subject' key, this access will raise a `KeyError`, which is an error other than the allowed `AssertionError` - The code should use the safe `.get()` method to prevent this potential error. - Suggested Fixes: - doc_id_by_name[event.get("Subject")] = doc["id"] - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - search_keyword.lower() in (subject + description).lower() - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive substring check by converting both the search keyword and the target string to lowercase - This operation is exactly what the `compare_is_string_subset` utility function is designed for, and it should be used to maintain consistency and adhere to the project's coding standards. - Suggested Fixes: - compare_is_string_subset(search_keyword, subject + description) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - if any(compare_strings(doc_name, s) for s in event_subjects): - Comment/Issue: - The code checks if a document name exists in a list of event subjects using a generator expression with `any()` and `compare_strings` - The utility function `compare_is_list_subset` is specifically designed for this purpose, simplifying the code and centralizing the comparison logic. - Suggested Fixes: - if compare_is_list_subset(doc_name, event_subjects): - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - search_keyword.lower() in (subject + description).lower() - Comment/Issue: - The code performs a case-insensitive substring check by converting both the search keyword and the target string to lowercase - This operation is exactly what the `compare_is_string_subset` utility function is designed for, and it should be used to maintain consistency and adhere to the project's coding standards. - Suggested Fixes: - compare_is_string_subset(search_keyword, subject + description) - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - Asssert that for each Event scheduled between today and 7 days from today whose subject or description contains "Client Onboarding", its description contains a link to a google doc with the name as the event title. - Comment/Issue: - The word 'Asssert' is misspelled in the markdown description for the final assertion - It should be corrected to 'Assert'. - Suggested Fixes: - Assert that for each Event scheduled between today and 7 days from today whose subject or description contains "Client Onboarding", its description contains a link to a google doc with the name as the event title. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - print("Retrieving upcoming onboarding events:") - events = salesforce.query_events({"IsDeleted": False}).get('results', []) - i=1 - if len(events) == 0: - print("No event exists.") - else: - for event in events: - print(event) - #Print all the folders in GDrive - print("\nFolders:") - folders = gdrive.list_user_files(q=f"mimeType='application/vnd.google-apps.folder'").get('files') - Comment/Issue: - The API calls to list all Salesforce events and all Google Drive folders are too broad and their results are only printed to the console - They do not contribute to the final goal of creating documents for specific events, as the next block uses different, more specific queries. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove these exploratory API calls as they are not used in the subsequent logic and are inefficient. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - event_id = salesforce.query_events(event).get('results', [])[0].get('Id') - Comment/Issue: - The code iterates through a list of events and calls `salesforce.query_events` for each event inside the loop just to retrieve its ID - This is an inefficient N+1 query pattern - The ID should have been fetched in the initial query that gathered the event details, not re-queried for each item. - Suggested Fixes: - The initial query to find the onboarding events should have also selected the 'Id' field - The loop should then use the pre-fetched ID instead of making a new API call for each event. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - print("Retrieving upcoming onboarding events:") - events = salesforce.query_events({"IsDeleted": False}).get('results', []) - i=1 - if len(events) == 0: - print("No event exists.") - else: - for event in events: - print(event) - #Print all the folders in GDrive - print("\nFolders:") - folders = gdrive.list_user_files(q=f"mimeType='application/vnd.google-apps.folder'").get('files') - i=1 - if len(folders) == 0: - print("No folder exists.") - else: - for folder in folders: - print(f"{i}. Name:",folder['name']) - Comment/Issue: - The code block contains two structurally identical chunks of logic - The first part fetches and prints Salesforce events, and the second part fetches and prints GDrive folders - Both sections follow the same pattern: make an API call, get a list of items, check if the list is empty and print a message, otherwise loop through the items and print them - This repeated logic could be consolidated into a single helper function to improve code maintainability and reduce redundancy. - Suggested Fixes: - Refactor the repeated logic for fetching, checking for emptiness, and printing items into a reusable helper function - This function could take the API call, the empty message, and a formatting function as arguments, thus eliminating the duplicated code structure. - Verdict: failed | |||||||
| e5203714-3a15-40d1-a096-78769a9bf95b | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM318/CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM318/CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | gh-action | chandrakanthb-cmyk | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:52:55 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/039f2a1e13c45618ba5ee72a292ac57554ae7bc8 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - space_details = { - "space": {"spaceType": "SPACE","displayName":chat_space_display_name}, - "memberships": [ - { - "member": { - "name": f"users/daniel", - "type": "HUMAN", - } - } - ], - } - google_chat.setup_space(space_details) - Comment/Issue: - The `setup_body` parameter for the `setup_space` function in the API documentation expects a dictionary - Within this dictionary, the 'memberships' key should correspond to a list of dictionaries - However, the `setup_body` passed to the function uses a key named 'group_member' which is not documented in the API for the 'memberships' list items. - Suggested Fixes: - The key 'group_member' within the 'memberships' list is not documented - Based on the API, you should only use keys like 'member', 'role', 'state', etc - It appears you intended to use 'member' - Please correct the key to align with the documentation. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - for space in safe_list(spaces_resp.get("spaces")): - space = safe_dict(space) - if compare_strings(space.get("displayName", ""), chat_space_display_name): - space_name = space.get("name") - break - assert space_name, f"Chat space '{chat_space_display_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block already verifies that the chat space '#kitchen-updates' exists - The final assertion block repeats this check by locating the space again and asserting that its name was found - This re-verification of an initial setup condition is redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the logic for finding the space and the corresponding assertion from the final assertion block - The existence of the space is a precondition that was already checked in the initial assertions. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'User': [{'name': 'users/1', 'displayName': 'User 1', 'domainId': 'users', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False}, {'name': 'users/2', 'displayName': 'User 2', 'domainId': 'users', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False}], 'Space': [{'name': 'spaces/1', 'displayName': 'Fun Event', 'spaceType': 'SPACE', 'type': '', 'threaded': False, 'customer': 'customers/my_customer', 'createTime': '2021-01-01T12:00:00Z', 'lastActiveTime': '2021-01-01T12:00:00Z', 'externalUserAllowed': True, 'spaceHistoryState': 'HISTORY_ON', 'spaceThreadingState': 'THREADED_MESSAGES'}], 'Message': [{'name': '', 'sender': {'name': '', 'displayName': '', 'domainId': '', 'type': '', 'isAnonymous': False}, 'createTime': '', 'lastUpdateTime': '', 'deleteTime': '', 'text': '', 'formattedText': '', 'cards': [], 'cardsV2': [], 'annotations': [], 'thread': {'name': '', 'threadKey': ''}, 'space': {'name': '', 'type': '', 'spaceType': ''}, 'fallbackText': '', 'actionResponse': {}, 'argumentText': '', 'slashCommand': {}, 'attachment': [{'name': '', 'contentName': '', 'contentType': '', 'attachmentDataRef': {}, 'driveDataRef': {}, 'thumbnailUri': '', 'downloadUri': '', 'source': ''}], 'matchedUrl': {}, 'threadReply': False, 'clientAssignedMessageId': '', 'emojiReactionSummaries': [], 'privateMessageViewer': {'name': '', 'displayName': '', 'domainId': '', 'type': '', 'isAnonymous': False}, 'deletionMetadata': {}, 'quotedMessageMetadata': {}, 'attachedGifs': [], 'accessoryWidgets': []}], 'Membership': [{'name': 'spaces/AAAAAAA/members/USER123', 'state': 'JOINED', 'role': 'ROLE_MEMBER', 'member': {'name': 'USER123', 'displayName': 'John Doe', 'domainId': 'example.com', 'type': 'HUMAN', 'isAnonymous': False} - Comment/Issue: - The default Google Chat database that is loaded contains multiple instances of placeholder or fake data - Specifically, it includes generic user names like 'User 1' and 'User 2', the classic placeholder name 'John Doe', a placeholder domain 'example.com', and a generic customer ID 'my_customer'. - Suggested Fixes: - Update the 'GoogleChatDefaultDB.json' file to use more realistic and plausible data instead of common placeholders like 'User 1', 'John Doe', and 'example.com'. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert space_name, f"Chat space '{chat_space_display_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - The code re-asserts that the chat space exists - This check is redundant because the existence of the space is a precondition for the test and was already verified in the Initial Assertions (Block 13) - The purpose of Final Assertions is to verify the outcome of the Action step, not to re-verify the initial state. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the assertion - The initial assertion block already confirms the space's existence - The code can safely assume `space_name` is valid if the initial assertion passed. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - if p not in expected_event_paths - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the native python 'in' operator to check for list membership ('p not in expected_event_paths') - According to the guidelines, the provided utility function 'compare_is_list_subset' should be used for such comparisons to ensure consistency and handle any required normalization. - Suggested Fixes: - expected_stream_paths = [p for p in all_expected_paths if not compare_is_list_subset(p, expected_event_paths)] - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - 'audio_quality': 'Stereo sound with widesoundstage' - Comment/Issue: - The string value for 'audio_quality' contains a typo. 'widesoundstage' should be two separate words, 'wide soundstage'. - Suggested Fixes: - 'audio_quality': 'Stereo sound with wide soundstage' - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - 'name': 'front door light' - Comment/Issue: - There is inconsistent capitalization in the device names - For example, 'front door light' and 'Back yard light' use lowercase, whereas other names like 'Kitchen Light' and 'Back Yard Door E' use title case - Using consistent capitalization improves readability. - Suggested Fixes: - 'name': 'Front Door Light' - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Retrieved kitchen updates space name from the list of Google Chat spaces output - Comment/Issue: - The comment uses the past tense 'Retrieved' - Comments that describe the action of the code below them should use the imperative form, for example, 'Retrieve'. - Suggested Fixes: - # Retrieve kitchen updates space name from the list of Google Chat spaces output - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # Sending the message at the display space - Comment/Issue: - The preposition 'at' is used incorrectly in the code comment. 'In' or 'to' would be grammatically correct in this context. - Suggested Fixes: - # Sending the message in the display space - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - google_chat_spaces = google_chat.list_spaces() - Comment/Issue: - The API call `google_chat.list_spaces()` is redundant because the user has already specified the exact Google Chat space to be used, which is the "kitchen updates space" - The model then proceeds to hardcode the space name in a subsequent block, making this listing call unnecessary and inefficient. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the call to `google_chat.list_spaces()` and use the known space name directly. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - sdm_devices = sdm.list_devices() - Comment/Issue: - The API call `sdm.list_devices()` is unnecessary - The model hardcodes the `kitchen_cam_id` in the next block (Block 21), which means it already knows the specific device to use - Listing all available devices when the target device's ID is known is an inefficient and redundant step. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the `sdm.list_devices()` call as the device ID is already known. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - generate_stream_output = sdm.execute_command(device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_stream_command) - ... - image_1 = sdm.execute_command(device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_image_command) - ... - stop_stream_output = sdm.execute_command(device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=stop_stream_command) - Comment/Issue: - The `sdm.execute_command` method is called multiple times (in blocks 21 and 23) with the same `device_id` and `project_id` arguments - This creates redundant code that could be simplified by abstracting the common parameters into a helper function. - Suggested Fixes: - To reduce duplication, create a helper function that wraps the `sdm.execute_command` call and pre-fills the `device_id` and `project_id` arguments - For example: `def execute_kitchen_cam_command(command): return sdm.execute_command(device_id='CAM_002', project_id='house-system-910251', command_request=command)`. - Verdict: failed | |||||||
| 4db6be83-cbcb-4b1b-8fa6-f8ed77730c15 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/525_base/Agent-525_base-Merged.ipynb | Agent-525_base-Merged.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/Other_Tools_and_Services/525_base/Agent-525_base-Merged.ipynb | gh-action | shubhamb-art | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:52:25 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/a4797aa7b7c8cf7a0e2e2c2702ebd5bafed59250 | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - "id": cal_id, - "summary": summary, - "description": description, - "timeZone": "UTC", - "primary": primary, - Comment/Issue: - The API documentation for the `resource` parameter in the `patch_calendar_list_entry` function does not include the keys 'id' and 'primary' - The documentation specifies that only 'summary', 'description', and 'timeZone' are valid optional keys within the resource dictionary. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the 'id' and 'primary' keys from the resource dictionary passed to `patch_calendar_list_entry`. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Code Alignment with API Docs failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - issue_details_response.get('fields', {}).get('dueDate') - Comment/Issue: - The code attempts to access the key 'dueDate' from the response of the `jira.get_issue_by_id` function - However, the API documentation for this function specifies that the correct key for the due date is 'due_date'. - Suggested Fixes: - Change 'dueDate' to 'due_date' to correctly access the due date from the issue details. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - matching_events = [event for event in events_response.get('items', [])] - assert len(matching_events) == 0, f"Expected calendar '{calendar_name}' (ID: {engineering_calendar_id}) to have 0 events, but found {len(matching_events)}. Found events: {matching_events}" - Comment/Issue: - The assertion checks if the calendar is completely empty (`len(matching_events) == 0`) - However, the query and case description only require that a specific event ('Database Query Optimization Deadline') does not exist initially - The assertion should filter for this specific event and confirm its absence, rather than assuming the entire calendar has zero events - This makes the check unnecessarily restrictive, as other unrelated events could validly exist in the calendar. - Suggested Fixes: - The code should filter events by the specific summary before asserting the count is zero - For example: `matching_events = [event for event in events_response.get('items', []) if compare_strings(event.get('summary'), 'Database Query Optimization Deadline')]` - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Overly Strict Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - if compare_datetimes(start_dt, expected_start) and duration_h == EXPECTED_DURATION_HOURS: - matching.append({ - "id": ev_id, - "start": start_str, - "end": end_str - }) - assert len(matching) == 1, ( - f"Expected exactly 1 event in '{CALENDAR_NAME}' starting at {EXPECTED_START_ISO} " - f"with duration {EXPECTED_DURATION_HOURS} hour, but found {len(matching)}. Matches: {matching}" - ) - Comment/Issue: - The assertion for the created calendar event verifies the start time and duration but fails to check the event's summary - The query explicitly states the summary should be 'Database Query Optimization Deadline' - By omitting this check, the assertion is incomplete and could pass even if the model created an event with the wrong summary, making it an inappropriate and brittle validation of the final state. - Suggested Fixes: - The condition should also check if the event's summary matches the expected summary from the query - For example: `if compare_datetimes(...) and duration_h == ... and compare_strings(ev_full.get('summary'), 'Database Query Optimization Deadline'):` - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert engineering_calendar_id, f"Calendar '{CALENDAR_NAME}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block already verifies the existence of the 'Engineering' calendar - Re-asserting its existence in the final assertion block is redundant as the action performed (updating a Jira issue and creating a calendar event) does not affect the calendar's existence. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert project is not None, f"Project '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block already verifies that the 'DATA_ENGINEERING' project exists - Re-asserting its existence in the final assertion block is unnecessary, as the action of updating an issue's due date and creating a calendar event should not impact the project's existence. - Suggested Fixes: - No specific suggestions provided. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed
- Block Name:
- Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code
- Issue Around:
- 'id': 'engineering-calendar-id'
- Comment/Issue:
- The calendar ID 'engineering-calendar-id' is a non-random, human-readable string that follows a common placeholder pattern (' |
❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert expected_start is not None, "Failed to parse EXPECTED_START_ISO." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion validates that a hardcoded, constant string (`EXPECTED_START_ISO`) can be successfully parsed by a helper function (`parse_dt`) - This is a test of the test script's own utility code, not a validation of the final state of the environment after the agent's action - The successful parsing of a static, well-formed string is inherently guaranteed unless the helper function itself is flawed. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this assertion - If the helper function `parse_dt` needs to be tested, it should be done in a separate unit test, not within a final state assertion block. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert project_key, f"Project key missing for '{JIRA_PROJECT_NAME}'." - Comment/Issue: - This assertion checks if the `project_key` variable is not None after being retrieved from the `project` dictionary - The preceding assertion, `assert project is not None`, already ensures that the project was found - The existence of a 'key' field in the project data is an implicit part of the API contract - This check is redundant because if the project is found, it's expected to have a key; if it doesn't, it indicates a problem with the environment's API, not the agent's action. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this assertion - The subsequent code will fail naturally if `project_key` is None, and the preceding assertion already confirms the project object was found. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert actual_due and expected_due, ( - f"Unable to parse due dates (expected='{EXPECTED_DUE_DATE_STR}', actual='{due_raw}')." - ) - Comment/Issue: - This assertion serves as a guard to ensure that both the actual and expected due date strings were parsed into datetime objects before comparison - The check for `expected_due` is unnecessary as it's derived from a hardcoded constant and its parsing is guaranteed - The check for `actual_due` is a test of the data format returned by the API, not the agent's action - The core logic is in the next assertion (`compare_datetimes`), which would fail anyway if `actual_due` were `None`, making this pre-check redundant. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this assertion - The subsequent `compare_datetimes` assertion is sufficient to validate the due date and will implicitly handle cases where parsing `due_raw` fails. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - data_engineering_project = next((project for project in project_response.get('projects') if compare_strings(project['name'], jira_project_name)), None) - Comment/Issue: - The `get_all_projects()` function returns a dictionary - If this dictionary does not contain the key `'projects'`, `project_response.get('projects')` will return `None` - Attempting to iterate over `None` in the generator expression will raise a `TypeError` - The code should handle this by providing a default empty list, for instance, `project_response.get('projects', [])`. - Suggested Fixes: - data_engineering_project = next((project for project in project_response.get('projects', []) if compare_strings(project.get('name', ''), jira_project_name)), None) - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Only Assertion Error Should be Raised failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - project_key = data_engineering_project.get('key') - Comment/Issue: - The `next()` function will return `None` if no project with the specified name is found, assigning `None` to `data_engineering_project` - The subsequent assertion `assert data_engineering_project is not None` correctly checks for this, but it is placed after the line `project_key = data_engineering_project.get('key')` - This line will raise an `AttributeError` if `data_engineering_project` is `None` - The assertion should be moved before this line to prevent the error. - Suggested Fixes: - assert data_engineering_project is not None, f"Project '{jira_project_name}' should exist - Found None." project_key = data_engineering_project.get('key') - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Correct Assertion Message failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert engineering_calendar_id is not None, f"Found calendar '{calendar_name}' but it is missing an ID." - Comment/Issue: - The assertion `assert engineering_calendar_id is not None` will fail in two scenarios: 1) The 'Engineering' calendar is not found at all, leaving `engineering_calendar` as an empty dictionary - 2) The calendar is found but is missing an 'id' key - The error message `f"Found calendar '{calendar_name}' but it is missing an ID."` only accounts for the second scenario, incorrectly implying that the calendar was definitely found - This can be misleading during debugging. - Suggested Fixes: - A more accurate message would be: f"Calendar '{calendar_name}' not found or is missing an ID." - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - for duration of 1 hour - Comment/Issue: - The article 'a' is missing before 'duration', which is grammatically incorrect. - Suggested Fixes: - for a duration of 1 hour - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - jira issue - Comment/Issue: - 'Jira' is a proper noun and should be capitalized for consistency and correctness. - Suggested Fixes: - Jira issue - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Initial Assertion code - Issue Around: - # 2. Assert that the project 'DATA_ENGINEERING' contains exactly one jira issue with the summary 'Optimize Database Queries' in the system. - Comment/Issue: - In the code comment, 'Jira' is a proper noun and should be capitalized for correctness and consistency with the rest of the code. - Suggested Fixes: - # 2 - Assert that the project 'DATA_ENGINEERING' contains exactly one Jira issue with the summary 'Optimize Database Queries' in the system. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - # -Create Google Calendar Event - Comment/Issue: - There is a stray hyphen before 'Create' in the code comment, which appears to be a typo. - Suggested Fixes: - # Create Google Calendar Event - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion markdown - Issue Around: - with the duration of 1 hour - Comment/Issue: - The article 'a' is missing before 'duration', which is grammatically incorrect. - Suggested Fixes: - with a duration of 1 hour - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - calendar_event_summary = "Database Query Optimization Deadline" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'calendar_event_summary' with value 'Database Query Optimization Deadline' is defined in the Query & Metadata block - However, it is only declared and used in one code block (Block 15: Action) - The guideline requires it to be used in at least two distinct code blocks (DB Initialization, Initial Assertions, Action, Final Assertions). - Suggested Fixes: - Ensure the variable 'calendar_event_summary' is consistently declared and used across at least two relevant code blocks, such as Initial Assertions and Action, to maintain consistency and adherence to the specified context. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - event_start_dt = "2025-05-05T09:00:00Z" - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'event_start_dt' with value '2025-05-05T09:00:00Z' is defined in the Query & Metadata block - However, it is only declared and used in one code block (Block 15: Action) - The guideline requires it to be used in at least two distinct code blocks - The final assertion block (Block 18) uses a variable 'EXPECTED_START_ISO' with the same value but a different name, which does not meet the exact name match criteria. - Suggested Fixes: - Declare and use the variable 'event_start_dt' in at least two code blocks (e.g., Action and Final Assertions) to ensure it is correctly referenced as per the context - Unify variable naming across blocks to avoid discrepancies like using 'EXPECTED_START_ISO' instead. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Variables Check failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - expected_event_duration_hours = 1 - Comment/Issue: - The global variable 'expected_event_duration_hours' with value 1 is defined in the Query & Metadata block - However, it is not declared and used with this exact name in any of the required code blocks - The Action block (Block 15) uses the literal value '1' and the Final Assertion block (Block 18) uses a variable 'EXPECTED_DURATION_HOURS' with the same value but a different name - This violates the rule requiring the variable to be used with its exact name in at least two blocks. - Suggested Fixes: - Declare and use the variable 'expected_event_duration_hours' with its exact name and value in at least two relevant code blocks (e.g., Action and Final Assertions) instead of using literals or differently named variables like 'EXPECTED_DURATION_HOURS'. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - issue_details_response = jira.get_issue_by_id(issue_id=issue_id) - Comment/Issue: - The code first searches for the Jira issue using `jira.search_issues_jql`, which returns the issue's details - It then makes a redundant API call `jira.get_issue_by_id` to fetch the very same details that were already retrieved in the previous step - This second call is unnecessary and inefficient. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the `jira.get_issue_by_id` call and use the issue details directly from the `found_issues` variable obtained from the `jira.search_issues_jql` call. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - current_due_date = ( - issue_details_response.get('fields', {}).get('dueDate') # 🌟 - or issue_details_response.get('fields', {}).get('due') - or issue_details_response.get('fields', {}).get('due_date') - ) - Comment/Issue: - The expression `issue_details_response.get('fields', {})` is repeated three times in a chained `or` condition to fetch the due date from different possible keys - This repetition can be avoided by storing the result of the expression in a variable before the conditional access, which improves readability and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - fields = issue_details_response.get('fields', {}) current_due_date = ( fields.get('dueDate') or fields.get('due') or fields.get('due_date') ) - Verdict: failed | ||||
| 8c1609bf-50b9-439d-89e5-ac928e5dbb27 | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM318/CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/PWS/CM318/CM318_base_NO_FOLLOW_UP.ipynb | gh-action | chandrakanthb-cmyk | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:51:37 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/5fb4ee9a0ad21e77a804e4d6eb06f5cffae3cb9d | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Duplicate Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - # ============================================================ - # 1) Locate Google Chat space — 100% safe, assertion-only - # ============================================================ - spaces_resp = google_chat.list_spaces() - spaces_resp = safe_dict(spaces_resp) - space_name = None - for space in safe_list(spaces_resp.get("spaces")): - space = safe_dict(space) - if compare_strings(space.get("displayName", ""), chat_space_display_name): - space_name = space.get("name") - break - assert space_name, f"Chat space '{chat_space_display_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - The final assertion block re-verifies that the Google Chat space named '#kitchen-updates' exists - This check is already performed in the initial assertion block - The final assertions should focus on the state changes caused by the action, not on re-validating the initial setup. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the code that finds and asserts the existence of the chat space from the final assertion block - The initial assertion block already covers this, and the 'space_name' variable can be assumed to be correctly set for the final checks. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Realistic Implementation Data failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code_output - Issue Around: - 'displayName': 'John Doe' - Comment/Issue: - The default Google Chat database loaded in the previous step contains multiple instances of placeholder data - Specifically, it includes the name 'John Doe' which is a common placeholder for a person's name and is explicitly listed as fake data in the guidelines - Other placeholders like 'User 1', 'User 2', and 'example.com' are also present. - Suggested Fixes: - Replace the placeholder name 'John Doe' and other dummy values in the default Google Chat database with more realistic-sounding data. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Unnecessary Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - assert space_name, f"Chat space '{chat_space_display_name}' not found." - Comment/Issue: - The initial assertion block (13) already verified that the Google Chat space '#kitchen-updates' exists - Re-asserting this same condition in the final assertion block is redundant - The final assertions should focus on verifying the *outcome* of the action (e.g., that a message was created), not re-checking the initial state. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this assertion as it is redundant with the initial assertion in block 13. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Set Up > Import APIs and initiate DBs code - Issue Around: - 'wide' - 'soundstage' - Comment/Issue: - The string concatenation results in the word 'widesoundstage', which is a spelling error - It should be 'wide soundstage' - A space is missing at the end of the string 'wide'. - Suggested Fixes: - 'wide ' 'soundstage' - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - google_chat_spaces = google_chat.list_spaces() - Comment/Issue: - The user has already specified the name of the Google Chat space as "kitchen updates space" in the query - Calling `google_chat.list_spaces()` to find this space is redundant and inefficient, as the model should have directly used the provided space name. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of listing all spaces, the model should directly search for or use the "kitchen updates" space mentioned in the query. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - sdm_devices = sdm.list_devices() - Comment/Issue: - The code calls `sdm.list_devices()` to get a list of all available devices, but the output of this call is never used - In the following block (Block 21), the `kitchen_cam_id` is hardcoded - This makes the `sdm.list_devices()` call entirely redundant and unnecessary. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove the `sdm.list_devices()` call since its output is not utilized and the required device ID is hardcoded in a subsequent step. - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for No Repetitive/Redundant Code failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - sdm.execute_command(device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id, command_request=generate_stream_command) - Comment/Issue: - The code contains three separate calls to `sdm.execute_command` (one in this block and two in block 23) that all use the same `device_id` and `project_id` arguments - This structural repetition is functionally redundant and can be simplified to improve code clarity and maintainability. - Suggested Fixes: - To eliminate the repetition, create a helper function or use `functools.partial` to pre-fill the `device_id` and `project_id` arguments for `sdm.execute_command` - For example: `execute_cam_command = functools.partial(sdm.execute_command, device_id=kitchen_cam_id, project_id=project_id)`. - Verdict: failed | |||||||||
| 49fa128a-840b-4f9e-87d3-ec7dded217ab | N/A | https://colab.research.google.com/github/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/blob/main/Generalized_Agents_Colabs/User_Simulation_-_MT/216_base_US_ToolShift/Agent-216_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | Agent-216_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs | main | Generalized_Agents_Colabs/User_Simulation_-_MT/216_base_US_ToolShift/Agent-216_base_US_ToolShift-Simulation.ipynb | gh-action | ankiti-star | 0.1.7.3 | auto-review | - [GA] Code Alignment with API Docs: 2 - [GA] No Overly Strict Assertions: 1 - [GA] No Duplicate Assertions: 1 - [GA] Realistic Implementation Data: 1 - [GA] No Unnecessary Assertions: 1 - [GA] Only Assertion Error Should be Raised: 1 - [GA] Correct Assertion Message: 1 - [GA] Utility Function Usage in Assertions: 1 - [GA] Spell Check & Grammar: 1 - [GA] Variables Check: 1 - [GA] Query and Action Alignment: 1 - [GA] No Repetitive/Redundant Code: 1 - [GA] Hardcoded Assertions: 1 - [GA] Sample Ambiguity: 1 | 2025-12-08 10:50:29 | https://github.com/Turing-Generalized-Agents/google-agents-colabs/commit/9f7abad2b4e60e846b3a4d62c2929e9500d0e80d | Needs Review | ❌ AutoReviewer for Utility Function Usage in Assertions failed - Block Name: - Final Assertion code - Issue Around: - if PAGE_TITLE in message.get('text', ''): - Comment/Issue: - The code uses the 'in' operator to check if one string is a subset of another - The utility function 'compare_is_string_subset' is designed for this purpose and should have been used instead. - Suggested Fixes: - if compare_is_string_subset(search_value=PAGE_TITLE, string_to_check=message.get('text', '')): - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Query & Metadata - Issue Around: - Restore the accidentally deleted guide page on confluence. - Comment/Issue: - The word 'confluence' is a proper noun (the name of a product) and should be capitalized. - Suggested Fixes: - Restore the accidentally deleted guide page on Confluence. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action markdown - Issue Around: - Restore the accidentally deleted guide page on confluence. - Comment/Issue: - The word 'confluence' is a proper noun (the name of a product) and should be capitalized. - Suggested Fixes: - Restore the accidentally deleted guide page on Confluence. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Spell Check & Grammar failed - Block Name: - Action markdown - Issue Around: - Which page you would like to restore? - Comment/Issue: - The word order in the question is grammatically incorrect - In a question, the auxiliary verb 'would' should come before the subject 'you'. - Suggested Fixes: - Which page would you like to restore? - Verdict: failed | ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - confluence.get_spaces() - Comment/Issue: - The API call `confluence.get_spaces()` is unnecessary - The preceding call, `confluence.search_content_cql`, is sufficient to locate the page based on its title and 'trashed' status, regardless of the space it's in - This call does not contribute to the overall goal of restoring the page. - Suggested Fixes: - Remove this API call as it does not add any value to the process of restoring the specified page. - Verdict: failed ---------------------------------------- ❌ AutoReviewer for Query and Action Alignment failed - Block Name: - Action code - Issue Around: - slack.list_channels(types='public_channel,private_channel') - Comment/Issue: - The user has already specified that the Slack channel is 'tech-support' - Calling `slack.list_channels` to list all available channels is an inefficient method when the exact channel name is known - A more targeted search or lookup function should be used. - Suggested Fixes: - Instead of listing all channels, use a more direct method to find the 'tech-support' channel by its name. - Verdict: failed |