mirror of
https://github.com/lobehub/lobehub.git
synced 2026-09-20 04:56:13 +08:00
Arvin Xu
2a3f0bcff6
* 🗃️ chore(database): record where a distilled standard came from, and what it rests on Four columns for turning a reviewer's rejections into delivery standards. Nothing reads them yet; the capture pipeline and the backtest are stacked on top. **`expertise_hits.source_check_result_id`** — the reverse lookup "which rejections taught this lesson". A hit could only reach an acceptance through `evidence_id`, and 260 of this owner's 876 rejections circled no evidence at all, so that path loses a third of the provenance. `on delete set null`: the link is provenance, not ownership, so deleting an acceptance must not delete the rule it taught — pinned by a test that deletes the check result and asserts the hit survives. **`expertise_lessons.reason_kind`** — whether the standard rests on a mechanism or on the owner's taste. Both are legitimate; only one can be enforced automatically, because a taste standard has no test a delivery could be measured against. This has to be a column rather than a note in the lesson body: the compile step reads it to refuse compiling taste into a criterion that blocks work on its own, and the body's wording follows the reviewer's own language, so matching on a phrase would silently miss for anyone not writing in Chinese. **`expertise_lessons.reason_source`** — whether the reviewer gave the reason or the distillation supplied it. An inferred reason is worth keeping, but it must never carry the weight of something the reviewer actually said. Both are decided when a lesson is born. A later rejection that supplies a real mechanism should arguably upgrade a `taste` lesson; the upgrade rule is not worked out, so that does not happen yet. **`expertise_lessons.backtest`** — how a standard scored against the reviewer's own past decisions before anything compiles it. The metric is precision on the units it fired on, deliberately not recall: every standard covers a narrow slice, so recall is near zero for all of them and separates nothing, while firing on approved deliveries is the failure that makes someone switch the feature off. Read against the base rate, not 1.0 — 876 of 1,956 judged units are rejections, so random firing already scores ~0.45. jsonb because the metric set is still moving. **`EXPERTISE_SUBJECT_TYPES` gains `standalone`** so a practice run can mirror the subject of the acceptance it came from (36 of 193 carry no in-product subject). `text({ enum })` emits no constraint, so it costs no migration. No indexes: the read paths are lesson → hits (already indexed) and the lesson row itself, and `expertise_hits` is the one table here with real scale risk. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * 📝 docs(database): write the expertise schema comments in English Comment-only change; the schema itself is untouched (verified by comparing the comment-stripped AST before and after). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * 🗃️ chore(database): keep which delivery each generalized boundary rests on A consolidation pass rewrites a standard from several rejections and may write exemptions into its `limits`. The only thing that makes such an exemption legitimate is a delivery the reviewer accepted while the standard's subject was plainly in view — and the rewrite text cannot carry that: the model cites deliveries by per-request labels ("S2") that mean nothing once the request is gone. Without a stored link, "why is this allowed" has no answer a week later. `expertise_lesson_revisions.evidence` (jsonb, nullable) records the rejected deliveries the pass read, the accepted ones it was offered, and for each boundary the accepted check result ids it was read from. null on a person's rewrite, whose authority is `feedback`. jsonb rather than a link table: a pass reads a handful of deliveries and is audited one revision at a time; the ids are provenance, so a deleted check simply stops resolving. Folded into the branch's unshipped 0165 migration by regenerating it, per the migration guide, so the PR still carries a single migration. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>