Software Developer · L0100 · 2026-07-09

Slice developer/0100 · Level 0100 (Frontend & Containers) · Adventurer tier · Engine verdict ❌ fail · Walked 2026-07-09

🔗 Perfection run · 🏠 Perfection dashboard · 📄 Raw report · 🕘 Change history

---

🎯 Session Summary

I walked the Developer path at Level 0100 — Frontend & Containers (Adventurer tier ⚔️), the first of two 5-quest windows over this 8-quest level. The slice as planned is: container-fundamentals → docker-compose-orchestration → frontend-docker → frontend → jekyll-component-refactoring.

Headline verdict: FAIL — but on partial, uneven evidence. The sealed engine run was auth_truncated: it evaluated only 3 of 5 planned quests and produced a real scored verdict for exactly one of them — frontend-docker (“Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5”), which scored 30% and failed convincingly, with four separate commands verified broken in the sandbox. The two strong Docker main quests ahead of it (container-fundamentals, docker-compose-orchestration) aborted at the engine level (max_turns, no verdict object) — that is an engine/sandbox limitation, not a content judgment, so I reasoned about them statically instead. The last two planned quests (frontend, jekyll-component-refactoring) were never reached.

The actionable finding a maintainer can act on today: the two 2024-era draft quests (frontend-docker, frontend) are the weak link of this level — legacy tooling (docker-compose v1, Bootstrap 4 idioms), placeholder objectives, an unwired dependency graph, and a broken step chain — and they sit right next to two freshly-authored, high-quality main quests that they contradict. The chain’s real problem is not the good quests; it’s that these two drafts drag the learning path backward.

🗺️ The Journey

#	Verdict	Quest	Score	One-line takeaway
1	⚠️	Docker Container Fundamentals: Images to Registries	— (engine abort)	Reads as a strong, correct, modern quest; engine hit max_turns before scoring (no verdict) — reasoned only.
2	⚠️	Docker Compose Orchestration: Multi-Container Apps	— (engine abort)	Clean prerequisite chain from #1, uses modern docker compose; engine max_turns, no verdict — reasoned only.
3	❌	Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5	30%	Fully scored: breaks at nearly every runnable step — docker-compose missing, dir-name mismatch, {​% raw %​} swallows the include, docker compose up crashes with GemNotFound.
4	⬜	Frontend Forests: Building a Jekyll Site with Bootstrap	not evaluated	Never reached by the engine; reasoned statically — heavy overlap with #3, placeholder objectives, native-Ruby path contradicts #3’s Docker path.
5	⬜	The Artisan’s Forge: Refactoring Jekyll Theme Components	not evaluated	Never reached by the engine; reasoned statically — well-authored side quest, minor docker-compose (v1) inconsistency in Phase 7.

Legend: ❌ scored fail · ⚠️ engine aborted (no score) · ⬜ not evaluated (reasoned only).

🔬 Evidence

Quest 3 — Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 (frontend-docker.md) — SCORED 30% ❌

The only quest with machine-checked evidence. Mode execute, 33 turns, ~$1.28, weight_covered: 1.0. Snippet coverage: 8 command blocks recorded, 7 run, 3 passed / 4 failed / 1 skipped (the git push block was correctly skipped as it needs real GitHub credentials).

Per-dimension scores (0–5): commands_work 1 · content_accuracy 1 · completeness 1 · clarity 2 · structure 2 · safety 4.

Commands actually run in the sandbox and their real outcome:

• PASSED — Dockerfile (FROM jekyll/jekyll:latest …) created and syntactically valid, but “never actually built/used — the docker-compose.yml … uses image: jekyll/jekyll:latest with no build: directive, making this Dockerfile dead content.”
• PASSED — docker-compose.yml parses, but Compose v2 warns “the attribute version is obsolete.”
• FAILED — docker-compose run jekyll jekyll new . → “docker-compose binary not found (only docker compose v2 plugin is installed: exit 127).” Substituting the v2 form then fails: “‘Conflict: /srv/jekyll exists and is not empty’ because Dockerfile/docker-compose.yml already exist in the mounted directory. Only succeeds with an undocumented --force.”
• FAILED — cd my-jekyll-site → “bash: cd: my-jekyll-site: No such file or directory — jekyll new . (with the dot) generates the site in the current directory, not a new my-jekyll-site subdirectory.”
• PASSED — _includes/head.html Bootstrap CDN snippet written as literal text (content itself is inaccurate for BS5 — jQuery/separate Popper are BS4 patterns; SRI hashes are sha384-xxx placeholders).
• FAILED — index.html build → “The built _site/index.html contains the literal, unprocessed text {​% raw %​}{​% include head.html %​}{​% endraw %​} instead of the Bootstrap tags” — the {​% raw %​}…{​% endraw %​} wrapping suppresses the include. Verified with bundle exec jekyll build.
• SKIPPED — git init && … git push -u origin master — “Requires a real GitHub account/repo and network credentials … correctly not run.” (Static note: pushes to master while GitHub defaults new repos to main.)
• FAILED — docker-compose up → “exit 127” for the missing binary; with docker compose up it “reproduces exactly the failure a learner would hit: Bundler::GemNotFound: Could not find base64-0.3.0, csv-3.3.5, json-2.20.0, logger-1.7.0, bigdecimal-4.1.2 in locally installed gems” — gems installed during jekyll new don’t persist to a fresh jekyll serve container. The engine confirmed the fix (bundle install && bundle exec jekyll serve in one shot) works.

Engine summary (verbatim): “The quest reads smoothly but breaks at nearly every executable step when actually run: the documented docker-compose binary doesn’t exist, jekyll new . conflicts with files created moments earlier, the follow-up cd my-jekyll-site targets a directory that’s never created, the closing docker-compose up crashes with Bundler::GemNotFound … and the Bootstrap include is wrapped in {​% raw %​} tags that silently prevent it from ever rendering. … This needs a substantial rewrite …”

Quests 1 & 2 — engine aborted, NO score

container-fundamentals and docker-compose-orchestration both terminated with terminal_reason: max_turns / "errors": ["Reached maximum number of turns (40)"] and verdict_obj: null. The overall: 0.0 / verdict: fail you see in the JSON is the harness coercing an aborted run — not a quality judgment. The transcripts show the child agent burning turns trying to actually exercise Docker (e.g. permission_denials on curl -s http://localhost:8080 and wget … localhost:8080, plus repeated docker --version / docker compose version probes). No per-quest command evidence exists for these two; everything I say about them below is reasoned, not tested.

Quests 4 & 5 — not evaluated

frontend.md and jekyll-component-refactoring.md were never reached (evaluated: 3, requested: 5, auth_truncated: true). No engine evidence at all; findings below are reasoned from the quest source only.

🐞 Issues Found

Only Quest 3 carries tested evidence; every other issue is explicitly labeled reasoned (read from the quest source, not run).

High

• tested · frontend-docker · Step 5 / docker-compose up — Observed Bundler::GemNotFound crash on the payoff command because gems from jekyll new don’t persist to the serve container. Fix: add a persistent bundle install step, a bundler-cache volume, or bake bundle install into a built image.
• tested · frontend-docker · Steps 2–3 directory naming — jekyll new . puts the site in the current dir, then cd my-jekyll-site fails (“No such file or directory”). Fix: pick one — jekyll new my-jekyll-site or drop the bogus cd.
• tested · frontend-docker · Step 4 Bootstrap include — Built _site/index.html contains literal {​% raw %​}{​% include head.html %​}{​% endraw %​}; the include never renders and _includes/footer.html is referenced but never created. Fix: remove the {​% raw %​}…{​% endraw %​} wrapper, add ---\n--- front matter to index.html, and create (or drop) the footer include.
• tested · frontend-docker · CLI syntax — Every docker-compose … (v1, EOL July 2023) invocation fails with exit 127. Fix: use docker compose … and drop the obsolete version: '3' key.

Medium

• tested · frontend-docker · content accuracy (Bootstrap “5”) — Snippets are Bootstrap 4: jQuery + separate Popper, data-toggle/data-target, .sr-only, .jumbotron (removed in BS5). Fix: drop jQuery, use bootstrap.bundle.min.js, rename to data-bs-* / .visually-hidden, replace .jumbotron.
• tested · frontend-docker · dead Dockerfile — The Step 2 Dockerfile is never built (compose pulls the image directly). Fix: wire it in with build: . or remove it.
• reasoned · frontend + frontend-docker · duplication & contradiction — Both quests are “build a Jekyll site with Bootstrap in the Frontend Forests” for the same level. frontend.md teaches a native Ruby install (gem install jekyll bundler, bundle exec jekyll serve) while frontend-docker.md sells “no Ruby install required” via Docker — a learner walking both gets two contradictory setups for the same goal. Fix: merge, or clearly differentiate (one “with Docker”, one “native”) and cross-link them.

Low

• tested · frontend-docker · placeholder objectives — Objectives block still reads “objectives auto-seeded during framework alignment — authors should refine these.” Fix: write concrete outcomes.
• reasoned · frontend · placeholder objectives — Identical unedited auto-seeded objectives block (lines 41–45).
• tested · frontend-docker · git push -u origin master — Assumes master; GitHub defaults to main. Fix: git branch -M main first.
• reasoned · frontend-docker & frontend · unwired metadata — Both are draft: true with empty prerequisites, quest_dependencies, and rewards (frontend-docker: progression_points: 0, no badges/skills). They contribute nothing to the level’s progression graph.
• reasoned · level-hub knowledge-graph split — The two strong quests link the hub as [[Level 0100 - Frontend & Containers]]; the three others link [[Level 0100 - Frontend Development & Docker]]. Two different hub names fragment the Obsidian graph. Fix: normalize to one canonical hub title.
• reasoned · jekyll-component-refactoring · Phase 7 — Uses docker-compose exec (v1 hyphen), inconsistent with the modern docker compose the Docker main quests teach. Fix: use docker compose exec.

No safety issues were observed — the one scored quest scored safety: 4 (all operations additive/local; the only network step, git push, targets a learner-owned repo and was not run).

🔗 Chain Continuity

The strong spine (Quests 1→2) holds together well. container-fundamentals declares no required quests and unlocks_quests: /quests/0100/docker-compose-orchestration/; docker-compose-orchestration declares required_quests: /quests/0100/container-fundamentals/. The dependency arrow is reciprocal and correct. Pedagogically the handoff is excellent: Chapter 4 of container-fundamentals literally introduces docker compose up as “your on-ramp to the next quest,” and Quest 2 opens by assuming single-container fluency. Both consistently teach the modern docker compose (v2, space) form and explicitly warn against the legacy docker-compose binary. A learner finishing Quest 1 is genuinely ready for Quest 2. (Reasoned only — the engine never scored these two, so I can’t attest their commands run; but their prerequisites, ordering, and tooling are internally consistent.)

The chain then falls off a cliff at Quest 3. frontend-docker (a 2024 draft) teaches the exact thing Quest 1 warned against — docker-compose (v1) — so a learner arriving from the polished Docker quests is handed a contradictory, EOL tooling convention and a step chain the engine proved broken end-to-end. Its prerequisites/quest_dependencies are empty, so nothing in the chain formally routes a learner into it; it floats. This is the slice’s continuity break.

Quest 4 (frontend) duplicates Quest 3 and contradicts it on setup (native Ruby vs. Docker), so as a sequence the two feel like two drafts of one unfinished quest rather than two steps of a journey. Quest 5 (jekyll-component-refactoring) is the best-authored of the non-Docker three (not draft, 2026-04, rich objectives/mermaid map), and it sensibly recommends /quests/0100/frontend-docker/ as prep — but that recommendation points a learner at the broken Quest 3, and its own Phase 7 slips back to docker-compose v1. So even the good side quest inherits the drafts’ tooling drift.

Prerequisite-gap summary: the level’s two ends are healthy (strong Docker main quests; strong refactoring side quest) but the middle is soft — two draft quests with no wired prerequisites, placeholder objectives, duplicated scope, and legacy tooling that actively contradicts what the level’s own main quests teach.

🧠 Reasoning & Method

• Mode: execute (sealed, workflow-minted evidence). I did not run the agentic engine — per the skill, walk-evidence.json / walk-evidence.md already existed, so step 2 was done; I consumed them verbatim and edited nothing.
• What is tested vs reasoned: Only Quest 3 (frontend-docker) has real sandbox command evidence — every “FAILED/PASSED/SKIPPED” in §Evidence and every tested-tagged issue traces to a command the engine actually ran (verbatim from walk-evidence.json). Everything about Quests 1, 2, 4, and 5 is reasoned from reading the quest source in plan order; I have no executed evidence for them.
• Coverage is partial and I am flagging it loudly. The engine run was auth_truncated: requested: 5, evaluated: 3, scored: 1, errored: 2. Quests 1 & 2 aborted on max_turns (40) with verdict_obj: null — their 0.0/fail is an engine abort, not a content grade, and I have deliberately not reported them as content failures. Quests 4 & 5 were never reached. So this session provides hard evidence for 1 of 5 planned quests, and reasoned-only coverage for the rest.
• Why the aborts likely happened: the transcripts show the child agent trying to actually drive Docker and reach localhost:8080 (permission-denied curl/wget), which is consistent with a sandbox without a usable Docker daemon / network — a plausible reason the two Docker-heavy quests exhausted their turn budget before emitting a verdict. That is an environment limitation to note for the maintainer, not a quest defect.
• Confidence: High on the frontend-docker findings (reproduced commands, consistent per-dimension scores, coherent summary). Medium on the chain-level observations (they rest on close source reading and the metadata, which is unambiguous). Low/none as an attestation that Quests 1, 2, 4, 5 run — they were not exercised.
• Recommended follow-up run: re-run the sealed engine for this slice with a working Docker sandbox (or a higher turn/auth budget) so Quests 1–2 produce real verdicts, and schedule window 1 of 2 to cover Quests 4 & 5 with actual execution before this level is certified.
• No content was modified. This report under test/quest-validator/walkthroughs/ is the only file written. No branch, commit, push, or merge — the workflow handles git.