chore(specs): auto-clarify 044-mcts-foundation#57
Open
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
Open
chore(specs): auto-clarify 044-mcts-foundation#57github-actions[bot] wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
github-actions bot
referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2026
#56) Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
f10150a to
98b14d7
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1 issue found across 1 file (changes from recent commits).
Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="044-mcts-foundation/spec.md">
<violation number="1" location="044-mcts-foundation/spec.md:63">
P2: The clarification changes EvaluationScore to win probability, but existing acceptance criteria still use `+4.5`, leaving the output format inconsistent.</violation>
</file>
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix. Tag @cubic-dev-ai to re-run a review.
| - Q: What is the structure of the unit tests for move generation validation? → A: Unit tests with structured test cases that cover edge cases like Deep Strike and Engagement contours | ||
| - Q: What is the structure of the unit tests for mid-game evaluation? → A: Unit tests with structured test cases that cover mid-game scenarios (e.g., Turn 4, 20 VP lead, dominant board control) to verify the engine returns a >90% win probability | ||
| - Q: What is the expected data structure for the GameState? → A: A dictionary containing key-value pairs for turn number, active player, unit positions, unit state flags, and VP scores | ||
| - Q: How is the evaluation score calculated? → A: A numerical value representing the win probability for the current player, based on MCTS tree search results |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P2: The clarification changes EvaluationScore to win probability, but existing acceptance criteria still use +4.5, leaving the output format inconsistent.
Prompt for AI agents
Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At 044-mcts-foundation/spec.md, line 63:
<comment>The clarification changes EvaluationScore to win probability, but existing acceptance criteria still use `+4.5`, leaving the output format inconsistent.</comment>
<file context>
@@ -59,29 +59,29 @@ As the engine, I need to generate all legal moves (movement, shooting targets, c
-- Q: What is the structure of the unit tests for move generation validation? → A: Unit tests with structured test cases that cover edge cases like Deep Strike and Engagement contours
-- Q: What is the structure of the unit tests for mid-game evaluation? → A: Unit tests with structured test cases that cover mid-game scenarios (e.g., Turn 4, 20 VP lead, dominant board control) to verify the engine returns a >90% win probability
+- Q: What is the expected data structure for the GameState? → A: A dictionary containing key-value pairs for turn number, active player, unit positions, unit state flags, and VP scores
+- Q: How is the evaluation score calculated? → A: A numerical value representing the win probability for the current player, based on MCTS tree search results
+- Q: How does the system handle board states with zero units or no engagement between units? → A: Implement a default evaluation score for these scenarios (e.g., 50% win probability for the current player)
+- Q: How are dice rolls handled? Are they simulated, or is an expected value calculated? → A: Calculate expected values of dice rolls using the Entropy Buffer to avoid time-consuming die simulations
</file context>
|
Contributor
Author
🔍 Specification Analysis Report:
|
| ID | Category | Severity | Location | Summary | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Ambiguity | 🟡 MEDIUM | vindicta-engine/src/vindicta_engine/mcts/zobrist.py | Missing implementation for Zobrist hashing | Implement Zobrist hashing for GameState. |
| A2 | Coverage Gap | 🟠 HIGH | vindicta-engine/tests/mcts/test_models.py | Missing unit tests for arena capacity | Implement unit tests to verify arena capacity behavior and ensure it is implemented properly. |
| U3 | Inconsistency | 🟢 LOW | vindicta-engine/tests/mcts/test_models.py | Missing test cases for move_stack | Add unit tests for move_stack functionality to verify its implementation and behavior. |
Generated by speckit-analyze using Ollama (gemma2:2b)
Created Issues
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Automated Spec Clarification
This PR was automatically generated by the speckit-clarify workflow
after
044-mcts-foundation/spec.mdwas merged intomain(commit: 98b14d7).What happened
Changes
## Clarificationssession with Q&A pairsReview guidance
Please review the auto-applied clarifications and: