jeffemmett
/
infinite-agents-public
mirror of https://github.com/Jeff-Emmett/infinite-agents-public.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
infinite-agents-public/infinite_variants/infinite_variant_4/specs/quality_standards.md

14 KiB
Raw Blame History

Quality Evaluation Standards

Purpose

This document defines the default quality standards used when specifications don't include explicit quality criteria. These standards ensure consistent, fair, and meaningful quality evaluation across all iterations.

Quality Philosophy

Quality is multi-dimensional:

  1. Technical Excellence: Does it work well?
  2. Creative Innovation: Is it interesting?
  3. Specification Adherence: Does it meet requirements?

All three dimensions matter. A perfect score requires excellence in all areas.

Technical Quality Standards (35% weight)

Code Quality (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Clean, readable code with consistent formatting
  • Comprehensive comments explaining complex logic
  • Descriptive variable and function names
  • No code duplication (DRY principle)
  • Follows established conventions (JavaScript/CSS best practices)

Good (15-19 points)

  • Mostly clean and readable
  • Some comments on key sections
  • Reasonable naming conventions
  • Minimal duplication
  • Generally follows conventions

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Functional but messy in places
  • Sparse comments
  • Inconsistent naming
  • Some code duplication
  • Some convention violations

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • Hard to read or understand
  • No comments
  • Poor naming choices
  • Significant duplication
  • Ignores conventions

Evaluation Questions:

  • Can I understand the code without running it?
  • Are complex sections explained?
  • Are names self-documenting?
  • Is there unnecessary repetition?
  • Does it follow language idioms?

Architecture (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Highly modular with clear separation of concerns
  • Reusable components and functions
  • Logical organization and structure
  • Scalable design patterns
  • Well-defined interfaces

Good (15-19 points)

  • Reasonably modular
  • Some reusable components
  • Generally logical organization
  • Basic design patterns applied
  • Clear function boundaries

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Monolithic but organized
  • Limited reusability
  • Some organizational issues
  • Basic structure present
  • Functions exist but coupled

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • Monolithic and disorganized
  • No reusable components
  • Poor organization
  • No clear structure
  • Tangled dependencies

Evaluation Questions:

  • Is the code organized into logical modules?
  • Can components be reused?
  • Is there separation of concerns?
  • Would it scale to larger problems?
  • Are dependencies clear and minimal?

Performance (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Fast initial render (< 300ms)
  • Smooth animations (60fps)
  • Efficient algorithms and data structures
  • Optimized DOM operations
  • No memory leaks or performance regressions

Good (15-19 points)

  • Acceptable render time (< 500ms)
  • Mostly smooth animations (> 50fps)
  • Reasonable algorithm choices
  • Generally efficient DOM usage
  • No major performance issues

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Slow but acceptable render (< 1s)
  • Some animation jank (30-50fps)
  • Basic algorithm choices
  • Inefficient DOM operations
  • Minor performance issues

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • Very slow render (> 1s)
  • Janky animations (< 30fps)
  • Poor algorithm choices
  • Excessive DOM manipulation
  • Significant performance problems

Evaluation Questions:

  • How fast does it load and render?
  • Are animations smooth?
  • Are algorithms efficient?
  • Is the DOM manipulated efficiently?
  • Are there memory leaks?

Robustness (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Comprehensive input validation
  • Graceful error handling with user feedback
  • Edge cases thoroughly covered
  • Cross-browser compatible
  • Defensive programming throughout

Good (15-19 points)

  • Basic input validation
  • Error handling for common cases
  • Most edge cases covered
  • Works in modern browsers
  • Some defensive programming

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Minimal input validation
  • Basic error handling
  • Some edge cases missed
  • Works in one browser
  • Limited defensive programming

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • No input validation
  • No error handling
  • Edge cases cause crashes
  • Browser-specific code
  • No defensive programming

Evaluation Questions:

  • What happens with invalid input?
  • Are errors handled gracefully?
  • What about edge cases (empty data, huge data, etc.)?
  • Does it work across browsers?
  • Is the code defensive against failures?

Creativity Score Standards (35% weight)

Originality (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Truly novel visualization approach never seen before
  • Fresh perspective that challenges conventions
  • Original conceptual framework
  • Innovative use of metaphors or analogies

Good (15-19 points)

  • Mostly original with some familiar elements
  • Interesting perspective
  • Some novel ideas
  • Creative combinations of existing concepts

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Familiar approach with minor twists
  • Standard perspective
  • Few original elements
  • Mostly derivative with small variations

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • Generic, seen many times before
  • No original perspective
  • Pure template implementation
  • No creative thought evident

Evaluation Questions:

  • Have I seen this approach before?
  • Does it offer a fresh perspective?
  • Is the concept original?
  • Does it surprise or delight?

Innovation (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Solves problems in unexpected ways
  • Clever technical solutions
  • Innovative feature combinations
  • Pushes boundaries of what's possible

Good (15-19 points)

  • Some creative problem-solving
  • Interesting technical choices
  • Useful feature combinations
  • Explores some new territory

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Standard problem-solving
  • Conventional technical choices
  • Basic feature set
  • Stays in safe territory

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • No problem-solving evident
  • Default technical choices
  • Minimal features
  • No exploration

Evaluation Questions:

  • Does it solve problems creatively?
  • Are technical choices innovative?
  • Do features combine in interesting ways?
  • Does it push boundaries?

Uniqueness (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Completely distinct from all other iterations
  • Unique visual identity
  • Distinctive interaction model
  • Memorable and recognizable

Good (15-19 points)

  • Mostly distinct from others
  • Some unique visual elements
  • Somewhat different interactions
  • Reasonably memorable

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Similar to some other iterations
  • Generic visual style
  • Standard interactions
  • Forgettable

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • Nearly identical to other iterations
  • No visual distinction
  • Copied interaction patterns
  • Indistinguishable

Evaluation Questions:

  • Is this different from other iterations?
  • Does it have a unique visual identity?
  • Are interactions distinctive?
  • Would I remember this?

Aesthetic (25 points max)

Excellent (20-25 points)

  • Beautiful, sophisticated visual design
  • Harmonious color scheme
  • Excellent typography
  • Professional polish
  • Strong visual hierarchy

Good (15-19 points)

  • Attractive visual design
  • Pleasant color scheme
  • Good typography choices
  • Generally polished
  • Clear visual hierarchy

Adequate (10-14 points)

  • Acceptable visual design
  • Adequate color choices
  • Basic typography
  • Some polish missing
  • Weak visual hierarchy

Needs Improvement (0-9 points)

  • Unattractive or chaotic design
  • Poor color choices
  • Bad typography
  • Unpolished appearance
  • No visual hierarchy

Evaluation Questions:

  • Is it visually appealing?
  • Do colors work together?
  • Is typography appropriate?
  • Does it feel polished?
  • Is there clear visual hierarchy?

Spec Compliance Standards (30% weight)

Requirements Met (40 points max)

Excellent (32-40 points)

  • All functional requirements fully implemented
  • All technical requirements satisfied
  • All design requirements addressed
  • Extra features beyond requirements
  • Complete and comprehensive

Good (24-31 points)

  • Most requirements implemented
  • Minor requirements partially met
  • Most design requirements addressed
  • No extra features
  • Generally complete

Adequate (16-23 points)

  • Core requirements met
  • Some requirements missing
  • Basic design requirements only
  • Minimal implementation
  • Partially complete

Needs Improvement (0-15 points)

  • Major requirements missing
  • Many requirements unmet
  • Design requirements ignored
  • Significantly incomplete
  • Fails basic criteria

Evaluation Questions:

  • Are all functional requirements implemented?
  • Are technical requirements satisfied?
  • Are design requirements addressed?
  • Is anything missing?
  • Are there bonus features?

Naming Conventions (20 points max)

Excellent (16-20 points)

  • Follows naming pattern exactly
  • Appropriate iteration numbering
  • Descriptive theme identifier
  • Correct file extension
  • Perfect adherence

Good (12-15 points)

  • Follows naming pattern mostly
  • Correct iteration number
  • Reasonable theme identifier
  • Correct extension
  • Minor deviations

Adequate (8-11 points)

  • Recognizable pattern
  • Iteration number present
  • Generic theme identifier
  • Correct extension
  • Some deviations

Needs Improvement (0-7 points)

  • Ignores naming pattern
  • Wrong or missing iteration number
  • No theme identifier
  • Wrong extension
  • Significant deviations

Evaluation Questions:

  • Does the filename follow the spec pattern?
  • Is the iteration number correct?
  • Is the theme identifier descriptive?
  • Is the file extension right?

Structure Adherence (20 points max)

Excellent (16-20 points)

  • Perfectly matches specified structure
  • All structural requirements met
  • Proper organization of components
  • Follows architectural guidelines
  • Complete structural compliance

Good (12-15 points)

  • Mostly matches structure
  • Most structural requirements met
  • Generally organized correctly
  • Follows most guidelines
  • Minor structural deviations

Adequate (8-11 points)

  • Recognizable structure
  • Some structural requirements met
  • Basic organization present
  • Follows some guidelines
  • Some structural issues

Needs Improvement (0-7 points)

  • Wrong structure
  • Structural requirements ignored
  • Poor organization
  • Ignores guidelines
  • Major structural problems

Evaluation Questions:

  • Does the structure match the spec?
  • Are components organized as specified?
  • Are architectural guidelines followed?
  • Is the file structure correct?

Quality Standards (20 points max)

Excellent (16-20 points)

  • Exceeds all quality baselines
  • Professional craftsmanship evident
  • Attention to detail throughout
  • Best practices applied
  • Exemplary quality

Good (12-15 points)

  • Meets all quality baselines
  • Good craftsmanship
  • Generally detailed work
  • Most best practices applied
  • Solid quality

Adequate (8-11 points)

  • Meets minimum quality baselines
  • Acceptable craftsmanship
  • Some attention to detail
  • Some best practices applied
  • Baseline quality

Needs Improvement (0-7 points)

  • Below quality baselines
  • Poor craftsmanship
  • Lack of attention to detail
  • Best practices ignored
  • Substandard quality

Evaluation Questions:

  • Does it meet quality baselines?
  • Is craftsmanship evident?
  • Is there attention to detail?
  • Are best practices applied?

Scoring Guidelines

Composite Score Calculation

composite_score = (technical * 0.35) + (creativity * 0.35) + (compliance * 0.30)

Result is 0-100 scale.

Score Interpretation

90-100: Exceptional

  • Excellence across all dimensions
  • Exemplary quality
  • Top tier work
  • Benchmark for others

80-89: Excellent

  • Strong performance in all areas
  • High quality
  • Well-executed
  • Worthy of study

70-79: Good

  • Solid performance
  • Meets expectations well
  • Quality work
  • Above average

60-69: Adequate

  • Meets basic requirements
  • Acceptable quality
  • Room for improvement
  • Average

50-59: Needs Improvement

  • Below expectations
  • Significant weaknesses
  • Requires work
  • Below average

Below 50: Insufficient

  • Does not meet standards
  • Major deficiencies
  • Substantial rework needed
  • Fails basic criteria

Evaluation Principles

  1. Objectivity

    • Base scores on observable evidence
    • Document reasoning for each score
    • Avoid personal bias
    • Apply criteria consistently

  2. Fairness

    • Evaluate against standards, not other iterations
    • Consider context and constraints
    • Recognize different approaches to quality
    • Don't penalize creative risk-taking unfairly

  3. Constructiveness

    • Identify specific strengths
    • Point out concrete weaknesses
    • Suggest improvement opportunities
    • Frame feedback positively

  4. Consistency

    • Use same criteria for all iterations
    • Maintain scoring calibration
    • Avoid evaluation drift
    • Regular calibration checks

  5. Transparency

    • Document all scoring decisions
    • Explain reasoning clearly
    • Make criteria explicit
    • Enable understanding of scores

ReAct Integration

Every evaluation should follow ReAct pattern:

THOUGHT: Reason about what quality means for this iteration ACTION: Apply evaluation criteria and score OBSERVATION: Analyze results and their implications

Document reasoning at each phase to ensure transparent, thoughtful evaluation.

Continuous Improvement

These standards should evolve:

  1. Calibration: Regularly check if scores match actual quality
  2. Refinement: Adjust criteria based on experience
  3. Expansion: Add new quality dimensions as needed
  4. Simplification: Remove criteria that don't differentiate

Quality evaluation is itself a quality process requiring continuous improvement.

Version: 1.0 Last Updated: 2025-10-10 Based on: ReAct reasoning pattern and industry best practices