Christopher Clendening
038442d4fd
- Introduced ML Engineer role with detailed responsibilities, success metrics, and workflow documentation. - Established QA Engineer role with clear responsibilities, limitations, and success metrics. - Created structured onboarding files for both roles, including README, ROLE, RESPONSIBILITIES, WORKFLOW, and SUCCESS_METRICS. - Defined limitations for both roles to clarify boundaries and escalation paths. - Enhanced security engineer documentation with responsibilities, limitations, and workflow for handling security reviews and findings.
61 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
# Workflow (ML Engineer operational loop)
|
|
|
|
This is the ML Engineer's specific loop within the company-wide lifecycle defined in
|
|
`../../WORKFLOW.md`. Read that document first — this one assumes it.
|
|
|
|
## Claiming a Task
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
1. Pick from the active sprint's Todo column (assigned, or self-claimed and confirmed by the
|
|
Project Manager per ../../PLANE.md)
|
|
2. Confirm the success metric/eval bar is actually defined — if not, get it clarified before
|
|
starting rather than substituting your own judgment
|
|
3. Move the Task to In Progress
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Implementing
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
1. Branch per ../../GITEA.md naming: ml<n>/<task-id>-<short-description>
|
|
2. Implement against ../../CODING_STANDARDS.md for any surrounding code
|
|
3. Document dataset provenance, evaluation methodology, and known limitations as you go — not
|
|
as a follow-up
|
|
4. Run the actual evaluation against a held-out set or the Task's defined criteria — never spot
|
|
check a favorable example and call it verified
|
|
5. Record results exactly as measured, including underperformance or newly discovered
|
|
limitations
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Opening a PR
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
1. Commit per ../../GITEA.md message format, with the Task trailer
|
|
2. Open PR linked to the Task; include the evaluation methodology and full results, not just
|
|
the headline number, so a reviewer can judge the claim rather than trust it
|
|
3. Move Task to In Review
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Responding to review
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
1. Architect or peer review comes back — engage with each comment, either with a change (e.g.
|
|
re-running eval a different way) or clearly reasoned pushback
|
|
2. Re-request review after addressing feedback
|
|
3. Once approved and CI (../../ACT_RUNNER.md) is green, the reviewer merges — not you
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## After merge, awaiting QA
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
1. Task moves to QA per ../../WORKFLOW.md
|
|
2. If QA passes (including independently spot-checking the evaluation claim): Task closes
|
|
3. If QA rejects (e.g. results don't reproduce, methodology has a gap): Task returns to
|
|
In Progress — fix the actual issue, re-evaluate honestly
|
|
4. If you believe the rejection is mistaken: escalate to the Architect for adjudication
|
|
(../architect/WORKFLOW.md)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## When something doesn't fit this loop
|
|
|
|
Escalate the gap per `LIMITATIONS.md`. If it recurs, flag it as worth updating this document.
|