GitHub basics
Instrument the evaluation pull request
Page 6 adds signals that distinguish bad input from component failure in the pull request from `improve-evaluation` into main.
1Learn the idea
Read
Emit stage signals
Instrument the pull request from improve-evaluation into main so a run records enough structure to debug offline: counts, latency if relevant, pass/fail of gh pr view shows base=main, head=improve-evaluation, and check summary, and a stable stage name. Redact secrets and raw credentials from every event.
Read
Emit and assert
gh pr view --json url,commits,reviews --jq '{url,commits:(.commits|length),reviews:(.reviews|length)}'
Expected evidence: PR url with commit/review counts. Prefer JSON or structured text you can grep in CI over prose logs for github-basics.
Read
Lock signals with a regression test
Turn one historical failure—especially pushing straight to main—into a test that fails if the signal disappears for the evaluation pull request. Observability without a failing test is optional decoration; observability with a test is part of the github-basics artifact.
Read
Lab notebook: signal schema
Draft a three-field event for the evaluation pull request: stage, ok, and one domain field derived from gh pr view shows base=main, head=improve-evaluation, and check summary. Add fixture_id or docs_version when content can change. Explicitly list fields that must never appear (tokens, passwords, raw prompts) because force-pushing rewritten history on a shared branch or leaking tokens in PR body is in scope for this lab.
Wire one assertion that fails if the evaluation pull request event is missing after a run. Observability that cannot fail a test will not survive contact with a busy github-basics repository.
Read
Worked judgment
Imagine a teammate opens only your event stream after a bad deploy. Could they tell whether feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit was wrong, whether pushing straight to main, or opening a PR with failing checks ignored returned, or whether force-pushing rewritten history on a shared branch or leaking tokens in PR body slipped through? If not, rename fields until those three stories are distinguishable.
Read
Why this stage matters for the evaluation pull request
At the testing and observability stage for github-basics, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about feature branch improve-evaluation with one commit that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: branch protection / required checks listed before opening the PR.
For this page specifically, success looks like a structured event schema locked by a test while still centering the user decision to propose a reviewed evaluation change for merge only after checks pass. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the evaluation pull request, stay on this page instead of advancing.
Go deeper
Before you start
Why this matters
Write the single log line or metric event that would tell you whether a bad result came from input vs implementation for the evaluation pull request. If your line could not tell them apart, redesign it before coding.
In the wild
See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.
Related lessons
Check your understanding
Page assessment
Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.
All responses are required.