Re: request for help: LLM-based quality assurance
Tim Rühsen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Bruno, Pavel > Thanks for explaining your setup and showing their results. I think for some kind of decision we need some kind of reproducibility (using the loosely here as results from LLMs rarely reproduce exactly). > The fact that your setup did not flag this commit as a regression shows > that Pavel's setup is more useful. Absolutely. That's why I am very curious about the setup. Another experiment with Claude code (closed source agent) connected to the same local LLM as before found the issue in commit 17dc60e624cd6fc3491f9cb002f760d60e66ce8b: "Important caveat: The original commit 17dc60e624 introduced a bug in mbrtowc.c — it replaced MBRTOWC_EMPTY_INPUT_BUG with MBRTOC32_EMPTY_INPUT_BUG (wrong macro name) and added _GL_SMALL_WCHAR_T (mbrtoc32-specific). This was fixed by follow-up commit 2ca51a77e6. Both commits should be evaluated together." It produced a longish result/summary explaining the issue in details. What makes Claude code different from the pi agent (OSS) is it's very verbose system prompt, which alone is >20.000 tokens. I did not use a skill this time. Claude took 15mins vs. pi taking 3mins in the previous experiment. This tells me, that we have to craft a proper system prompt and/or a review skill to get comparable results from an oss agent + open weight model. Do we already know whether we tend to - best results using closed source, closed weights, energy intensive, costly or - best effort using open source, open weights, 100x (1000x?) less energy intensive, minimal costs ? Does it make sense to work on a gnulib specific AGENTS.md as well as on a system prompt that can be used for reviews? > 15 lines of suggestions about a #if, without noticing that this #if condition > is in fact buggy (incomplete): It needs to be enabled on all platforms which > test pwc or n. Including the cases MBRTOWC_NUL_RETVAL_BUG and > MBRTOWC_IN_C_LOCALE_MAYBE_EILSEQ. I'm fixing that through the patch below. Thank you, Bruno! Regards, Tim
OpenPGP_signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 840 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsF5BAABCAAjFiEEHLJ9vJhhSy1YQWRtCDAttqJnBCgFAmomkycFAwAAAAAACgkQCDAttqJnBCjf lBAAmGrGOHtQ6UYXeKcDcKNveJ6W0mt9WNKMCsq/s2bz6dxYlHzw/IWQW9pI8E74rsK6sWCHV+Vz iRaRcv/fiuSNb6PqcMejiybSBsiPm0f9u4hAkeoYvG2ax/RQGM9OldYtpmWPFiCRI0vghkKdIg6F Sj1f76gwg3lwMeOe7neu2wmHDCOR8qFXcvd0z/sZRQgd9P5gNesCg+Th0PcY4FFooDKIccfVLdrB 66gQeRRyOszoxUOPAtSmKKB5Bak+c0+2BNzIRa8t73Ptqjxpmu6u6QK8SaM8CWgFQzrTyIs/yd09 d9AT2UYCUYrbxQktS1os9DRa6FAPXJynDQTQ8iZQ/w18QRkI1mOy2aq/31hbR0oZ48RchOhcN0BF yxhZsY228k0v0l8tn/r4u6sVLUAWm4P/P3/GksOgMztKZDe+jZURJbiksrtQ6X5Jghy4IXdVhOpS zYlymVYFlxQVSQ1eruLZLyos1whkd23DWOr6l1qYTPzZc9kiLbHwqe4vtIlkGon05neEM99pDpbF yS8fsnr7s+4y+8+ADUHsTGxT/5c298vLiHyChx3QvIDdu86aBzYLe6fD9s8X7EiPWduW+GDHK7pQ mYn1rdKCUbCpqzy80LJkykYDGskxadw5jV/XKnM4+SIsTw9Ts+WuJqlx5S2jz/dQTFZdp9aQrzLg dX8= =sDD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----