data/opus-25.jsonl

{"prompt": "the claims batch. spring batch, 40 steps, runs nightly, takes 6 hours and if step 31 fails we restart the whole thing because the restart logic was never finished. i'd like the plan for making it properly restartable and getting the runtime down, with an honest read on whether spring batch is still the right tool", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "restartable steps with proper checkpointing so a failure at step 31 resumes at 31, not step 1", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "batch monitoring page: steps with status and duration, the failed step highlighted, and a restart-from-here action", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the chunk size is 1 for every reader", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our 40 steps each build their own datasource and transaction manager. one configuration, same transactional behavior per step", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the batch fails about twice a month with a lock timeout on the claims table and always around 3am", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "could you explain what step 24 does? it's called ProcessAdjustments, it's 900 lines, and the person who wrote it left in 2019", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "document the nightly batch: what each step does, its inputs and outputs, the dependencies between them, and what breaks downstream if one is skipped", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "claim status transitions as an explicit state machine with the allowed transitions declared, replacing the scattered if-chains", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "a claim can go from Paid back to Pending through one code path and nobody knows if that's intentional", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "claims queue for adjusters: assigned claims, sortable by age and value, with the sla clock visible per claim", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the sla clock counts weekends", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "would you plan the claims api we'd expose to broker partners? read and submit, with the document upload, and the authorization model given brokers act on behalf of policyholders", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "document upload for claims with virus scanning, a page count limit, and the file associated to the claim atomically", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "uploaded documents occasionally attach to the wrong claim when an adjuster has two tabs open", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "review our claim authorization — can a broker see a claim for a policy they don't represent", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "broker api documentation: authentication, the claim submission payload, the document upload flow, and the status values with their meanings", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "imap client: idle support so new mail arrives without polling, and it must survive a server that drops the idle connection every 5 minutes", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the client re-downloads the whole mailbox when the uidvalidity changes, which some servers do daily", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the imap fetch requests full bodies for the message list", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "message list ui: threaded, unread emphasis, a snippet from the body, and it stays smooth at 50k messages", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our mime parsing handles multipart in the list view and again in the reader with different assumptions about nesting. one parser, same rendered messages", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan the offline mail store — what we sync, the eviction policy, and how a search covers messages we haven't downloaded", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "explain how our threading algorithm works and why it splits some conversations — i suspect it's References vs In-Reply-To", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "carry on", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "here's the bug report from the accessibility audit of the benefits application form, this is a legal requirement for us:\n\nSeverity: Blocker (WCAG 2.2 AA)\n1. The 14-step form has no way to know which step you're on with a screen reader — the step\n   indicator is a set of divs with color only.\n2. Validation errors appear at the top of the page as a plain div; focus stays where it was\n   and nothing is announced.\n3. The \"date of birth\" field is three separate inputs with a single visual label and no\n   programmatic association.\n4. The session times out after 20 minutes with no warning; users with cognitive\n   disabilities are losing 40 minutes of work.\n5. Required fields are indicated by red text only.\n6. The \"upload evidence\" control is a styled div with a click handler.\n\nRemediation required before the service can go live.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "session timeout warning at 2 minutes remaining, with an extend action, announced to assistive tech", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "required fields need a text indicator not just red", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "error summary component that receives focus on submit, lists the errors as links to the fields, and is announced", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the date of birth should be one fieldset with a legend and three labelled inputs", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "server-side session extension endpoint, and the draft saved on every step so a timeout doesn't lose the form", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our form components are a mix of native inputs and styled divs with click handlers, inconsistently. move everything to native elements, same visual design", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan the accessibility remediation for the whole service, prioritized by the audit severity, with the go-live date in mind", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "review the remaining 12 form steps for the same patterns the audit found in the first two", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "accessibility statement for the service, in the format the regulator requires, honest about the known issues and their fix dates", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "step indicator that's a proper ordered list with the current step marked programmatically, and 'Step 4 of 14' as text", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "form draft autosave every 20 seconds and on step change, resumable from any device the user logs in from", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "drafts save but resuming lands on step 1 with the data present, which is confusing", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the autosave indicator says 'Saving...' permanently after the first save", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "explain how the form's conditional steps work — which answers skip which steps, from the code, because the spec and the behavior disagree", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "content guide for the form: reading level target, how we phrase questions, and the error message patterns", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan how we test this form with actual assistive technology as part of CI or at least a release gate", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "automated accessibility checks on all 14 steps with the form filled at each stage, since half the issues only appear in an error state", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the a11y checks run on the empty form only and pass", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan the remediation and then fix the error summary as the first piece", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "frontendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "work out why drafts resume on step 1 and then update the service manual", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "next one", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "would you propose the architecture for the eligibility rules engine? the rules come from legislation, change a few times a year, and have to be applied as of the date of the claim not the date we process it. also caseworkers need to be able to explain to a claimant exactly why they got the answer they got", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "rules engine with rules versioned by effective date, evaluated against the claim date, producing a trace of which rules fired", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "decision explanation screen: the outcome, then each rule that contributed with the claimant's values shown against the threshold", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the explanation shows rule ids not descriptions", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our eligibility logic exists in the java service and again in a spreadsheet the policy team maintains, and they disagree on two thresholds. make the code derive from a single declared ruleset, and report which decisions change", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "claims submitted before a rule change but processed after get the new rules applied", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "read the eligibility code and tell me which rules are hardcoded constants versus configurable", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "write the rules documentation mapping each legislative clause to the implementing rule, for the policy team to verify", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "rules test harness with cases derived from the legislation's own worked examples, run in CI", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "three of the legislation's worked examples produce a different answer in our engine", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "rules admin ui for the policy team: view the active ruleset, the thresholds and their effective dates, read only for now", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the effective dates display in the ui as timestamps with a timezone", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan how a rule change gets from legislation to production — who authors, who verifies, how it's tested, and the audit trail", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "check whether a decision can be recomputed identically six months later, including the rules and reference data as they were", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "appeals process doc from the system's perspective: what we store, how a decision is reviewed, and what a reversal does to the record", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "decision recomputation endpoint that replays a claim against any ruleset version and diffs the outcome", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "recomputing an old decision uses today's reference data, which makes the whole thing pointless", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "続きをお願いします。次はルールのバージョン管理の実装から", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "ja"}
{"prompt": "letter generation for decisions — the outcome, the reasons, the appeal rights, in plain language and in the claimant's preferred language and format", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the generated letters are 6 pages because we include every rule considered rather than the ones that mattered", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "letter templates rewritten in plain language at the reading level our content standards require, with the legal content intact", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "letter preview for caseworkers with the merge fields resolved, before it goes out", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "unresolved merge fields print as {{claimant_name}} in the posted letters", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our letter templates are duplicated per channel (post, email, portal) with the content drifting. one content source, three renderings", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "ok go on", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the email client's search. currently it's a LIKE query against the locally cached bodies, which means it's slow, misses anything not downloaded, and can't do anything structured like from:x has:attachment. i want the plan — local index, server-side search via imap, or both — and how they combine into one result list that doesn't confuse people", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "local full text index over downloaded messages, incremental on sync, with the structured operators parsed into filters", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "search ui with the query parsed into visible chips so people can see how we interpreted it, and results that stream in", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "search treats a quoted phrase as separate words", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our search operator parsing exists in the local search and the server search path with different syntax support. one parser, and document which operators each backend can honor", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "results from the server search and the local index interleave with duplicates and different ordering", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "explain how our index handles a message being deleted on the server — does the index entry go, and when", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "search syntax help for users: the operators we support, what's searched locally vs on the server, and the limits", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "attachment search — index the text of pdfs and office documents locally, with a size cap and a way to skip encrypted ones", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "indexing attachments pegs the cpu for 20 minutes after a big sync", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the index runs at normal priority and makes the app unusable while it works", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan the index storage budget — how big it gets for a 100k message mailbox and what we evict first", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "storage settings screen: what the app is using, split by messages, attachments and index, with an option to reduce it", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the storage figure doesn't include the index, so it under-reports by 40%", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "review our sync strategy for a mailbox with 200k messages — what we download, in what order, and when the user can start using it", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "documentation of the local store schema and the sync state machine, for whoever picks this up next", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "priority sync — newest 2000 messages and anything in the inbox first, the rest in the background", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the initial sync downloads oldest-first so a new user sees 2009 emails for an hour", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan the multi-account support — separate stores, a unified inbox, and per-account settings that don't leak", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "unified inbox view merging accounts with the account indicated per row, and per-account filters", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "replying from the unified inbox sometimes sends from the wrong account", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our account state is held in a singleton that the compose screen reads, which is the multi-account bug waiting to happen. pass the account explicitly everywhere, same behavior with one account", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "check whether a draft composed under one account can be sent under another after an account switch", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "keep going please", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "here's the mail server interop matrix we built by testing, and it's the reason i want to talk about strategy:\n\n                  IDLE  CONDSTORE  QRESYNC  MOVE  SEARCH(FUZZY)  THREAD\n  gmail            y       y          y       y        n            y\n  outlook365       y       y          n       y        n            n\n  fastmail         y       y          y       y        y            y\n  dovecot 2.3      y       y          y       y        n            y\n  courier          y       n          n       n        n            n\n  exchange 2016    y       n          n       y        n            n\n  yahoo            y       n          n       n        n            n\n  cpanel/dovecot   y       y          n       y        n            y\n\nour code currently assumes CONDSTORE and falls back badly when it's absent — full resync.\ni want the plan for capability-driven behavior with a graceful path for the worst servers", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "capability detection and per-server strategy selection, with the fallback path for no-CONDSTORE servers doing an incremental resync not a full one", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our sync code branches on server hostname in four places to work around specific servers. replace with capability checks, same behavior per server in the matrix", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the capability list is fetched before login so we miss capabilities only advertised after authentication", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "server compatibility documentation: which features work per provider, and what a user on a limited server should expect", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "review our error handling when a server rejects a command we thought it supported", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "account setup with autodiscovery from the domain, falling back to a manual form with sensible guesses prefilled", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "setup wizard that explains what's happening at each step and doesn't ask for the port number unless it has to", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the manual setup form defaults to port 143 with no tls", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "account setup fails for one provider with 'authentication failed' when the real problem is an app password requirement", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "provider-specific setup help surfaced at the point of failure, for the six providers that need app passwords", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan our oauth support for the providers that offer it, so people stop needing app passwords", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "explain what we do with a stored password today and whether it's in the platform keychain or our own file", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "security documentation for the mail client: where credentials live, what's encrypted, and what a device compromise exposes", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "oauth token refresh in the background before expiry, with a clear re-auth prompt when the refresh token dies", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "oauth accounts silently stop syncing after 6 months with no prompt", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our credential storage has a keychain path and a plaintext fallback for when the keychain is unavailable. remove the fallback, and handle the unavailable case properly", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "design the capability abstraction then implement the CONDSTORE fallback", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "explain the sync state machine and then write it up properly", "purpose": "review", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "one last thing", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "propose how we structure the caseworker audit trail. every view, edit and decision, attributable, and it has to satisfy both the data protection requirement (claimants can ask who looked at their case) and the internal fraud team's needs. currently we log nothing on reads", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "read auditing on the claim endpoints with the caseworker identity and the reason, without adding a write to the hot path", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "who-accessed-my-case report for a claimant subject access request, generated as a pdf", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the audit report includes internal system accounts which means nothing to a claimant", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "audit search for the fraud team: by caseworker, by claim, by time window, with an export", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the audit search times out for windows longer than a week", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "review whether a caseworker can view a claim outside their region, and whether we'd know", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "audit trail documentation for the data protection officer: what's recorded, retention, who can query it, and the gaps", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "anomaly detection over the audit log — a caseworker viewing an unusual number of claims, or claims outside their caseload", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the anomaly detector flags the entire night shift because their pattern differs from days", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our access logging is in a filter for the api and a manual call in the batch jobs, and the batch ones don't log at all. one mechanism, coverage everywhere", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "plan the audit log's retention and archival — 7 years, and it grows at 40gb a month", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "audit records for one week in march are missing entirely", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "explain what happens if the audit write fails — does the operation proceed", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "audit integrity — hash chaining so tampering is detectable, with the verification job", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "internal doc on the audit log's integrity guarantees and how to verify a range", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the audit table has no index on the caseworker id", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "design the audit architecture then build the read-logging middleware", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "alright, stopping after this", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}