auto(polish): W24 #20 sotif-analysis-builder review pass, regen STATUS, journal
Autonomous daily run. - POLISH: first polish-log entry for sotif-analysis-builder (severity low, no fix needed) - Closes standing SOTIF zero-touch coverage mandate via documented review - STATUS.md regenerated (76/76 paired, 100%); journal updated Generated by automotive-skills-daily-standup scheduled task.
This commit is contained in:
Automotive Skills Autonomous
@@ -486,3 +486,17 @@ Standout finding is non-DoD and more impactful than the trigger gaps: the SKILL.
|
||||
- Wed/Thu W24 POLISH: sotif-analysis (#20), then safety-case (#21) / control-plan (#22) / communication-matrix (#23) as time allows. Expect ~3 of 4 skill targets to land in-week.
|
||||
- Confirm with maintainer (or via next TRIAGE) whether the weekend mass-close means the polish-loop workflow itself should change — if the human is closing weekly-target issues without merging the polish-log rewrites, the value of opening them weekly is worth revisiting.
|
||||
- The fmeda medium findings from W23 (classification-ladder branch, SMvDU acronym, 100× unit convention) and the cs-concept/tara findings still sit in the polish logs unapplied; none have an open issue anymore. Flag for human: decide whether these become PRs or are dropped.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-06-09 (autonomous run, POLISH)
|
||||
|
||||
**Mode:** POLISH
|
||||
**Action:** Reviewed sotif-analysis-builder.skill (W24 target #20); wrote first polish-log entry, severity low, no in-place fix warranted. Regenerated STATUS.md.
|
||||
**Files touched:** docs/skill-polish-log/sotif-analysis-builder.md (new), STATUS.md, docs/AUTONOMOUS_LOG.md
|
||||
**Tests:** N/A (no test suite in this repo yet)
|
||||
**Skill count:** 76 builders / 76 reviewers / 100.0% paired
|
||||
**Open issues:** 5 (#19 ci, #20 sotif, #21 safety, #22 quality, #23 comms — all weekly-target)
|
||||
**Notes:** Picked sotif-analysis-builder via POLISH priority order — open issues carry no skill-bug/reviewer-finding label (→ skip), suite has zero orphan builders (→ skip), so fell to least-recently-touched cohort (2026-05-01), and the W24 plan flagged sotif as the standing SOTIF-coverage mandate (only zero-touch domain in the May KPI). Deliberately did NOT take the Tuesday tooling slot #19 (classify_skill.py extraction): that is a multi-file refactor of inline STATUS logic, which the POLISH guardrail ("NEVER do large refactors") rules out for a daily pass — left for a dedicated session. Review found the skill healthy: frontmatter complete, description 619 chars, 12-tab table self-consistent, example JSON keys exactly match generator data.get() fields, both scripts parse, no TODO/placeholder markers. No mechanical fix existed, so none was forced — the 🟡 flag on sotif is date-based, not quality-based. Human note: #20's DoD mentioned "small fixes applied in-place"; none were applicable, so the deliverable is the documented review rather than a code edit, and sotif's last-touched date in STATUS therefore remains 2026-05-01.
|
||||
**Follow-ups:**
|
||||
- Wed/Thu W24 picks: safety-case-builder (#21), control-plan-builder (#22), communication-matrix-builder (#23) — same least-recently-touched cohort.
|
||||
- Tooling debt #19 (classify_skill.py extraction) needs a dedicated non-POLISH session; descoped from daily passes.
|
||||
- Optional future content pass on sotif: quadrant-legend one-liner, acceptance criterion singular/plural harmonization, verify references against ISO 21448:2022 clause numbering (all logged in polish-log, none blocking).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||
# Polish log — sotif-analysis-builder
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-06-09 (W24 POLISH, first pass)
|
||||
|
||||
**Tracking issue:** #20 (W24 polish target, label `sotif`)
|
||||
**Mode:** POLISH · **Severity:** low (no blocking issues found)
|
||||
**In-place fix applied:** none required (see rationale)
|
||||
|
||||
### What's good
|
||||
- **Frontmatter is valid and complete.** Required fields `name` and `description`
|
||||
both present; `description` is 619 chars, comfortably under the 1024-char ceiling.
|
||||
The description correctly frames SOTIF as distinct from ISO 26262 random-HW faults,
|
||||
which is the single most important triggering distinction for this skill.
|
||||
- **Body is coherent and self-consistent.** The "Output structure (12 tabs)" header
|
||||
matches the table exactly (rows 00–11 = 12 tabs). The tab inventory in the body
|
||||
lines up with the tab list implied by the description.
|
||||
- **Schema/example/generator are aligned.** Example input
|
||||
`examples/sample_sotif_input_aeb.json` has top-level keys
|
||||
`[system, functions, odd_definition, performance_limitations,
|
||||
functional_insufficiencies, triggering_conditions, hazardous_behaviors,
|
||||
scenarios, acceptance_criteria]` and every one is consumed by
|
||||
`scripts/generate_sotif_analysis.py` via a matching `data.get(...)`. No orphan
|
||||
fields, no fields the generator reads that the example omits.
|
||||
- **Scripts are syntactically sound.** `generate_sotif_analysis.py` and `recalc.py`
|
||||
both parse without error. No `TODO`/`FIXME`/`placeholder`/`lorem` markers anywhere
|
||||
in the archive.
|
||||
- **Correct cross-reference.** "When to use" routes random-HW-failure hazards to
|
||||
hara-builder, reinforcing the SOTIF-vs-FuSa boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
### What to fix
|
||||
- Nothing blocking. The skill is in good health.
|
||||
|
||||
### Suggested (non-blocking) edits for a future pass
|
||||
- **Quadrant terminology consistency (cosmetic):** the body uses both the standard
|
||||
ISO 21448 4-quadrant labels and the prose "Known/Unknown × Safe/Unsafe". These
|
||||
agree, but a one-line legend near tab 09 would remove any ambiguity for new users.
|
||||
- **Acceptance-criterion singular/plural:** prose refers to "Acceptance criterion"
|
||||
(tab 10) while the input key is `acceptance_criteria` (plural). The generator
|
||||
already keys on the plural, so this is purely descriptive — worth a one-word
|
||||
harmonization only if the file is opened for another reason.
|
||||
- **Reference freshness:** `references/iso21448_clauses.md` cites the §6 concept /
|
||||
§5 scenario taxonomy structure; confirm against the current ISO 21448:2022 clause
|
||||
numbering on a future content pass (low priority — structure is unchanged).
|
||||
|
||||
### Rationale for no in-place change
|
||||
Per POLISH discipline, edits are limited to small, obvious, unambiguous fixes
|
||||
(typo, over-length description, missing required frontmatter). None of those
|
||||
conditions are present here. The suggestions above are content-judgement calls,
|
||||
not mechanical fixes, so they are logged for a future deliberate pass rather than
|
||||
applied blind. A small honest commit beats a wrong one.
|
||||
|
||||
### Net assessment
|
||||
Healthy skill. The 🟡 staleness flag in STATUS.md is **date-based, not
|
||||
quality-based** — the file simply hasn't been edited since 2026-05-01. This review
|
||||
satisfies the standing SOTIF-coverage mandate (SOTIF was the only zero-touch domain
|
||||
in the May KPI); the domain has now had a documented quality pass.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user