Scripts for shorts 12, 13 and 14: the day the reviewers found nine th… - #56
Merged
Conversation
…ings Scripts only. Nothing is narrated — that spends credits, and the numbers in these want checking against the repository first, which is the whole point of the first one. **12 — the accusation my own code refused to make.** A clean bibliography that merely listed further reading was announced as "1 source contradiction", over a note saying the document disagrees with itself, on the page a teacher carries to a committee. The field that draws the line exists and carries a comment explaining exactly why; the line printing the headline never asked it. Second in the series where the tool comes off badly, and worse than the eleventh: that one said nothing, this one said too much, in the direction that accuses. The figure is **five days and one release**, verified: the headline entered on 2026-08-05 in 1b2b1b8 and went out in v0.4.0 the same day. I had written "months" in the previous commit message and in PR #53 without checking. The PR body now carries the correction rather than a quiet edit. **13 — a report that swears nothing was uploaded, fetching a pixel.** Escaping the angle bracket blocks HTML and does nothing to Markdown's own image syntax, so the promise on the last line was broken by the document being analysed. **14 — two reviewers, two questions, no overlap.** Nine defects between them and not one in common: the claims reviewer found no escaping bug, the attacker found no overclaim. The most transferable thing this project has learned this week, and the only one of the three aimed at developers rather than teachers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
…ings
Scripts only. Nothing is narrated — that spends credits, and the numbers in these want checking against the repository first, which is the whole point of the first one.
12 — the accusation my own code refused to make. A clean bibliography that merely listed further reading was announced as "1 source contradiction", over a note saying the document disagrees with itself, on the page a teacher carries to a committee. The field that draws the line exists and carries a comment explaining exactly why; the line printing the headline never asked it. Second in the series where the tool comes off badly, and worse than the eleventh: that one said nothing, this one said too much, in the direction that accuses.
The figure is five days and one release, verified: the headline entered on 2026-08-05 in 1b2b1b8 and went out in v0.4.0 the same day. I had written "months" in the previous commit message and in PR #53 without checking. The PR body now carries the correction rather than a quiet edit.
13 — a report that swears nothing was uploaded, fetching a pixel. Escaping the angle bracket blocks HTML and does nothing to Markdown's own image syntax, so the promise on the last line was broken by the document being analysed.
14 — two reviewers, two questions, no overlap. Nine defects between them and not one in common: the claims reviewer found no escaping bug, the attacker found no overclaim. The most transferable thing this project has learned this week, and the only one of the three aimed at developers rather than teachers.
What this changes
Why
Checklist
dotnet testpasses, with no new build warningsIf you touched the rule packs (
rules.en.json/rules.es.json):suggestion— what the writer should do insteadtests/SignsOfAI.Core.Testscovering itCleanHumaninScoringTestsstill scores exactly 0 (the new rule doesn't fire on ordinary prose).*; this runs on every keystroke in the browserIf you touched the articles in
Docs/Blog: