Collect Feedback and Implement Improvements for ARTIST Integration #249
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Genie <[email protected]>
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @anchapin, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
Summary of Changes
Hello team, Gemini here, providing a summary for this pull request. This PR, authored by anchapin, addresses issue #215 by documenting the feedback collected from users and developers regarding the ARTIST agent's usability and performance. The core change involves updating the artist_experiments/README.md file to include a new section that summarizes this feedback, highlighting the agent's strengths in mathematical reasoning and identifying areas needing improvement, such as error messaging and tool coverage. Additionally, the PR outlines the iterative improvements that have been made or are planned based on this feedback, serving as a living record for tracking ongoing enhancements.
Highlights
- Document ARTIST Agent Feedback: Adds a new section to the
artist_experiments/README.mdfile summarizing the feedback received from users and developers regarding the ARTIST agent's performance and usability. - Outline Planned Improvements: Details the iterative improvements that have been made or are planned for the ARTIST agent based on the collected feedback, including enhancements to error handling, tool registry, RL reward functions, and test cases.
Changelog
- artist_experiments/README.md
- Added a new top-level section titled "Feedback & Iterative Improvements".
- Included a subsection "Summary of Feedback" detailing user and developer input on the ARTIST agent.
- Added a subsection "Iterative Improvements (Made or Planned)" listing planned enhancements based on feedback.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Feedback flows in,
ARTIST learns and grows stronger,
README tracks the path.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request effectively addresses the goal of documenting user and developer feedback for the ARTIST agent, along with outlining iterative improvements. The additions to artist_experiments/README.md are clear, well-structured, and provide valuable transparency into the project's development lifecycle based on feedback.
Key strengths of this update:
- Clear Structure: The new "Feedback & Iterative Improvements" section is logically organized with "Summary of Feedback" and "Iterative Improvements (Made or Planned)" subsections.
- Direct Correlation: The planned/made improvements clearly map to the feedback received, showing a responsive development process.
- Future-Proofing: The note on line 104, indicating that the section is a living document (
*This section will be updated as more feedback is gathered and additional improvements are implemented.*), is a good practice.
Overall, this is a high-quality documentation update that enhances the README's utility. I have no medium, high, or critical severity concerns with these changes.
Summary of Findings
- Minor Readability Suggestion (Passive Voice): On line 95 of
artist_experiments/README.md, the phrase 'suggestions were made' is in passive voice. While grammatically correct and clear, consider rephrasing to active voice (e.g., 'Users and developers suggested...' or 'Feedback highlighted the need for...') for slightly more directness. This is a low-severity stylistic suggestion and was not added as a specific comment due to review settings. - Minor Detail Consideration for Feedback Summary: On line 95 of
artist_experiments/README.md, the 'Summary of Feedback' is well-written. For potential future enhancements, if specific common themes in error messages or particular types of tools requested become very prominent, a brief, high-level mention could add a bit more context without over-detailing the README. The current general summary is appropriate. This is a low-severity suggestion for future consideration and was not added as a specific comment due to review settings.
Merge Readiness
Based on this review, the changes in this pull request are well-implemented and significantly improve the documentation by providing a clear summary of feedback and planned improvements. There are no critical or high-severity issues identified that would prevent merging. While I am not authorized to approve the pull request, I believe it is in good shape for merging after consideration of any other pending reviews or processes. The minor, low-severity points noted in the findings summary can be addressed at the author's discretion.
…y features Co-authored-by: Genie <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Genie <[email protected]>
Add the `browser-tools-mcp/` and `fetch-mcp/` directories to the gitignore list. These directories contain mock companion process (MCP) servers generated during local development of the VS Code extensions and should not be tracked in version control.
|
Looks like there are a few issues preventing this PR from being merged!
If you'd like me to help, just leave a comment, like
Feel free to include any additional details that might help me get this PR into a better state. You can manage your notification settings |
This pull request addresses issue #215 by documenting the feedback collected from users and developers regarding the ARTIST agent's usability and performance. The changes made in the
artist_experiments/README.mdfile include a new section summarizing the feedback received, which highlights the agent's strengths in mathematical reasoning tasks and areas for improvement such as error messaging and tool coverage.Additionally, the PR outlines the iterative improvements that have been made or are planned, including enhanced error handling, an expanded tool registry, improved reinforcement learning reward functions, and the design of more realistic test cases. This documentation will serve as a living record to track ongoing enhancements based on user feedback.
Original Task: pAIssive_income/dxlu42uozvsn
Author: Alex Chapin