Skip to content

Devin: peer-support qualification and public scorecard #911

Description

@jeffhuber

Part of #901.

Problem

Peer-level support needs end-to-end evidence across lifecycle, context, builder delivery, review, recovery, and cost instead of transport-only claims.

Scope

Run bounded public/synthetic and private canary cases, document limitations, update the epic scorecard, and complete cold-install/package qualification. Include five delivery samples plus reviewer controls without treating small samples as broad productivity proof.

Dependencies

Acceptance criteria

  • Five bounded builder deliveries record outcome, intervention, elapsed time, ACU/cost when returned, review rounds, and PR result.
  • Clean/blocked reviewer controls and context/recovery cases are adjudicated.
  • Privacy, fresh install, package matrix, full tests, Board, and metadata upload pass.
  • Remaining limitations are explicit.

Code Mower delivery

Produce exactly one independently reviewable PR for this issue. Record the named builder, keep one writer on the branch, run focused tests and applicable full checks, obtain an independent Code Mower review against the exact current head, resolve every P0/P1/P2 finding, and pass normal CI plus code-mower/gate. Update the parent epic with PR/head, review, validation, outcome, and safe metadata-only upload evidence. Do not put credentials, source, diffs, prompts, transcripts, private context, task/message prose, or raw provider output in cloud data.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or request

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions