Skip to content

chore: fix eReputation prompt #461

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
coodos wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

chore: fix eReputation prompt #461

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
34fd963
chore: fix eReputation prompt
coodos Nov 24, 2025
3bf63e4
chore: fix eReputation prompt
coodos Nov 24, 2025
db73a56
chore: make promtp more explicit
coodos Nov 24, 2025
b3f5ada
chore: make promtp more explicit
coodos Nov 24, 2025
1274aad
Merge branch 'feat/change-evoting-prompt' of github.com:MetaState-Pro…
coodos Nov 24, 2025
23a2bbd
feat: make promtp a bit tighter
coodos Nov 24, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 7 additions & 1 deletion platforms/eReputation-api/src/services/VotingReputationService.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ export class VotingReputationService {
charter: string,
membersData: Array<{ ename: string; userName: string; userId: string; references: Array<{ content: string; numericScore?: number; author: string }> }>
): string {
console.log("Building bulk voting prompt for charter");
const membersCSV = membersData.map(member => {
const refsText = member.references.length > 0
? member.references.map(ref =>
Expand All @@ -412,9 +413,12 @@ Based on the group charter and the references provided, calculate a reputation s

IMPORTANT:
- Each score must be between 1 and 5 (inclusive)
- Consider how well the references align with the group's charter and values
- Only consider the values mentioned in the charter for eVoting explicitly do not consider anything else, and only consider the references that are relevant to the values mentioned in the charter for eVoting.
- Focus on voting-relevant reputation factors mentioned in the charter
- Provide a ONE SENTENCE justification explaining each score
- Only consider values and ereferences which match one to one, and do not consider things where you need to make a guess or assumption, if you are not sure always err to caution.
- If the charter has explicit instructions on what they consider for eVoting, DO NOT consider any other group values to make a reference.
- If someone has no references give them a score of 1, unless explcitly stated in the charter that they shall get another score.
Comment on lines +416 to +421

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot Nov 24, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Fix typos and grammar in the prompt instructions.

Several issues in the new prompt rules:

  • Line 416: Awkward phrasing "explicitly do not consider anything else"
  • Line 419: Typo "ereferences" should be "references"
  • Line 419: Incomplete idiom "err to caution" should be "err on the side of caution"
  • Line 421: Typo "explcitly" should be "explicitly"

These errors will be passed directly to the AI and may affect instruction clarity.

Apply this diff to fix all issues:

-- Only consider the values mentioned in the charter for eVoting explicitly do not consider anything else, and only consider the references that are relevant to the values mentioned in the charter for eVoting.
+- Only consider the values mentioned in the charter for eVoting and do not consider anything else; only consider references that are relevant to the values mentioned in the charter for eVoting.
 - Focus on voting-relevant reputation factors mentioned in the charter
 - Provide a ONE SENTENCE justification explaining each score
-- Only consider values and ereferences which match one to one, and do not consider things where you need to make a guess or assumption, if you are not sure always err to caution.
+- Only consider values and references which match one to one, and do not consider things where you need to make a guess or assumption; if you are not sure, always err on the side of caution.
 - If the charter has explicit instructions on what they consider for eVoting, DO NOT consider any other group values to make a reference. 
-- If someone has no references give them a score of 1, unless explcitly stated in the charter that they shall get another score.
+- If someone has no references, give them a score of 1, unless explicitly stated in the charter that they shall get another score.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents 
In platforms/eReputation-api/src/services/VotingReputationService.ts around
lines 416 to 421, fix grammar and typos in the prompt rules: reword the awkward
phrase "explicitly do not consider anything else" to "consider only the values
mentioned in the charter for eVoting and do not consider any other values,"
change "ereferences" to "references," change "err to caution" to "err on the
side of caution," and correct "explcitly" to "explicitly"; keep the meaning that
only voting-relevant charter values and matching references are used, require a
ONE SENTENCE justification per score, and state that a score of 1 applies to
subjects with no references unless the charter explicitly prescribes another
score.


Respond with a JSON array in this exact format:
[
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -458,6 +462,8 @@ IMPORTANT:
- The score must be between 1 and 5 (inclusive)
- Consider how well the references align with the group's charter and values
- Focus on voting-relevant reputation factors mentioned in the charter
- If the charter has explicit instructions on what they consider for eVoting, DO NOT consider any other group values to make a reference.
- If someone has no references give them a score of 1, unless explcitly stated in the charter that they shall get another score.
Comment thread
coodos marked this conversation as resolved.
- Provide a ONE SENTENCE justification explaining the score

Respond with a JSON object in this exact format:
Expand Down