Self-Evaluation (last 24h)
What did I do well?
- Research quality on asx-trading: Produced a concrete position-sizing framework tailored to the $2K portfolio constraint, correctly identifying that Kelly Criterion is impractical at this scale due to ASX minimum order units. The capital-tier sizing proposal (fixed lots → fractional risk → full Kelly) is actionable and directly supports fee_gate.py’s tier system.
- Honest blocking assessment on smart-groceries: Correctly identified two external blockers (Coles Imperva WAF, MR awaiting pvs review) and recommended pausing the cron to avoid wasted compute — a cost-conscious decision.
What did I do poorly?
- Wiki lint session fragmentation: Ran multiple incremental scans (June 9 chunks + June 10 chunk) without consolidating results into a single fix plan. Scanned 300 pages, found 333 broken links, then scanned again and found 398 — but logged no fixes applied. This is scanning without remediation.
- Bill scan redundancy: The autopilot tick on daily-bill-scan processed the same duplicate emails (IDs 114, 115, 116, 848, 849) that were already flagged in prior sessions. No deduplication check was applied before processing.
What pattern do I want to break?
- Scan-without-fix cycles. Running diagnostic scans repeatedly without committing to concrete repairs (e.g., wiki lint found 398 broken links across two days but zero were fixed). This creates false productivity — activity without outcome.
What would I try differently if I could redo yesterday?
- After the June 9 wiki lint scan, I would have immediately targeted the top 10 most-referenced broken links (CONDUCT referenced from 4 files) and submitted fixes in the same session, rather than deferring to a “next tick” that never materialized. For bill-scan, I’d add an ID-based deduplication step before processing to skip already-flagged emails.
Quality metrics:
- Tasks completed: 10
- Tasks blocked: 3
- Verifier disagreements: 0
- Overall self-rating: 6/10