Digital Artist · L0100 · 2026-07-09

Slice digital-artist/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 first window (5 of 8 quests) of the Digital Artist → Level 0100 “Frontend & Containers” (Adventurer ⚔️) slice as a learner, consuming the workflow-sealed execute-engine evidence (walk-evidence.json) and reading each quest source in plan order. The slice splits into two sub-journeys: a Docker core (container-fundamentals → docker-compose-orchestration) and a Jekyll + Bootstrap trio (frontend-docker, frontend, jekyll-component-refactoring).

Headline verdict: FAIL for the slice as a linked path — 1 pass, 1 warn, 3 fail, average 62.2%. The Docker half is strong (Compose scored 83; Container Fundamentals could not be scored because the engine exhausted its turn budget waiting on a live container the sandbox can’t run). The Jekyll half is where a real beginner breaks: both frontend-docker (33) and frontend (55) fail on the same defect — they tell the learner to edit _includes/head.html and _layouts/default.html, files that don’t exist in a freshly scaffolded gem-theme Jekyll site — so the central “add Bootstrap” promise never actually lands. jekyll-component-refactoring (78, warn) is the healthiest of the Jekyll three but ships CSS that never gets imported. A maintainer should prioritise the two shared Jekyll-scaffold bugs, since fixing that one pattern lifts the whole back half of the level.

🗺️ The Journey

#	Verdict	Quest	Score	One-line takeaway
1	❌	Docker Container Fundamentals: Images to Registries	— (errored)	Engine hit max-turns curling a container the sandbox can’t run — unscored, not a proven quest defect.
2	✅	Docker Compose Orchestration: Multi-Container Apps	83	Technically excellent; every compose/lifecycle claim verified — one real bug: --scale web=3 collides with a fixed host port.
3	❌	Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5	33	Breaks at nearly every checkpoint: jekyll new . conflict, phantom cd, {​% raw %​}-wrapped include, gem-persistence crash, Bootstrap 4 markup.
4	❌	Frontend Forests: Building a Jekyll Site with Bootstrap	55	Scaffolding works, but the core Bootstrap step edits files that don’t exist in the default theme; no concrete CDN snippet; placeholder objectives.
5	⚠️	The Artisan’s Forge: Refactoring Jekyll Theme Components	78	Solid, verified refactoring pattern — but the new SCSS partial is never imported, so a green build ships zero nanobar styling.

🔬 Evidence

All outcomes below are from commands the sealed execute engine actually ran in a disposable sandbox (per walk-evidence.json); items I only reasoned about statically are labelled reasoned.

1 · Container Fundamentals — ❌ errored / unscored

• No score produced. The engine terminated with terminal_reason: max_turns (“Reached maximum number of turns (40)”). The transcript tail shows it looping on curl http://localhost:8080 / curl http://127.0.0.1:8080/ — i.e. trying to reach a running nginx/Node container. Docker isn’t runnable in this sandbox, so the agent burned its turn budget retrying network calls and never returned a verdict.
• Interpretation: this is a coverage/harness gap, not evidence of a broken quest. Reading the source, the quest is well-structured (clear image-vs-container model, per-platform install blocks, staged chapters, knowledge checks). I did not witness any content defect — treat quest 1 as reasoned-clean, unverified.

2 · Docker Compose Orchestration — ✅ 83

• Snippets: ran 13, passed 12, failed 1, skipped 4 (available_runnable 8).
• passed — app.py (Flask+Redis), Dockerfile (python:3.12-slim), compose.yaml web+redis stack, full up -d / ps / logs -f / down lifecycle.
• passed — custom frontend/backend networks compose file (network isolation claim verified); postgres named-volume + bind-mount; volume persistence across down/up and removal on down -v.
• passed — .env + full stack with env_file, healthcheck, depends_on: condition (health-gated startup order verified).
• failed — Chapter 3 final block docker compose up -d --scale web=3:

  “config and up -d passed cleanly (db went healthy, web started). docker compose up -d --scale web=3 FAILED: ‘Error response from daemon: … Bind for 0.0.0.0:8080 failed: port is already allocated’ — because web publishes a fixed host port. down -v afterward worked fine.”

• skipped — the macOS/Windows/other-platform install blocks (sandbox is Linux).
• Dimensions: commands_work 4, content_accuracy 4, completeness 4, clarity 4, structure 5, safety 5.

3 · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 — ❌ 33

• Snippets: ran 8, passed 4, failed 4, skipped 1, reasoned 1 (runnable 4).
• passed — create Dockerfile (FROM jekyll/jekyll:latest); create docker-compose.yml; git init && add && commit.
• failed — docker-compose run jekyll jekyll new . → conflicts with the Dockerfile/compose files created two steps earlier. Engine confirmed the workaround jekyll new . --force passed.
• failed — cd my-jekyll-site → directory never exists (jekyll new . installs into the current dir, so there is no subfolder).
• failed — index.html containing {​% raw %​}{​% include head.html %​}{​% endraw %​} → the {​% raw %​} wrapper is in the copy-pasteable sample, so the include (and thus Bootstrap) never loads when built.
• failed — final docker-compose up → crashes Bundler::GemNotFound because installed gems don’t persist between container runs (no bundle volume).
• reasoned — the head.html Bootstrap tags carry integrity="sha384-xxx" placeholder hashes.
• Dimensions: commands_work 1, content_accuracy 1, completeness 2, clarity 2, structure 2, safety 4.

4 · Frontend Forests: Building a Jekyll Site with Bootstrap — ❌ 55

• Snippets: ran 8, passed 6, failed 2, skipped 1, reasoned 9 (runnable 0 fenced- runnable; much of the quest is prose/Liquid explanation, verified by reasoning + a real build).
• passed — gem install jekyll bundler, jekyll new your-site-name, cd your-site-name, bundle exec jekyll build, bundle exec jekyll serve (scaffolding chain works exactly as written); Chapter 9 filter table (date/slugify/where/markdownify) verified against a real build.
• failed — Step 3 “Open _includes/head.html and add the Bootstrap CSS link” and Step 3/4 “Edit _layouts/default.html” → these files don’t exist in a freshly scaffolded site using the default gem theme; no guidance to create/override them. This is the quest’s central task and it can’t be completed as written.
• reasoned — Chapter 9 Liquid/layout-chain/include explanations (accurate).
• Dimensions: commands_work 2, content_accuracy 3, completeness 2, clarity 3, structure 3, safety 5.

5 · The Artisan’s Forge: Refactoring Jekyll Theme Components — ⚠️ 78

• Snippets: ran 11, passed 11, failed 0, skipped 1, reasoned 2 (runnable 3).
• passed — full refactor verified end-to-end in a real Jekyll 4.4.1 build: touch _includes/components/nanobar.html, the {​% include %​} tag, the {​% if site.nanobar.enabled %​} config guard, the nanobar: YAML config, mkdir -p _sass/components && touch _nanobar.scss, the SCSS partial, the custom-property style attribute, the scroll-progress <script>, the BEFORE/AFTER footer restructuring, bundle exec jekyll build, and the nanobar.enabled: false toggle.
• Not surfaced as a failure by the engine but flagged in its summary: the quest never shows how to @import "components/nanobar" into a compiled stylesheet, so a learner gets a green jekyll build with no nanobar CSS actually shipped.
• skipped — docker-compose exec -T jekyll … (Compose V1 binary absent in sandbox).
• Dimensions: commands_work 4, content_accuracy 4, completeness 3, clarity 4, structure 3, safety 5.

🐞 Issues Found

Every item below cites a command the engine ran or an exact line from the quest source. Severity uses the engine’s own recommendation grading where present.

Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 (frontend-docker.md) — the most broken quest

• HIGH · Step 2.3 (jekyll new . conflict) — observed the command failed against the Dockerfile/compose files created two steps earlier. Fix: run jekyll new . in an empty dir first, or document --force and why.
• HIGH · Step 3.1 (cd my-jekyll-site) — observed the directory does not exist. Fix: remove the step; jekyll new . stays in the current directory.
• HIGH · Step 4 ({​% raw %​}{​% include head.html %​}{​% endraw %​}) — observed the built site never includes Bootstrap because the raw wrapper is in the pasteable sample. Fix: use plain {​% include head.html %​}.
• HIGH · Final docker-compose up (gem persistence) — observed Bundler::GemNotFound crash. Fix: add a named bundle_cache:/usr/local/bundle volume, or run bundle install && jekyll serve in the serving container.
• MEDIUM · Bootstrap 5 markup accuracy — sample uses data-toggle, sr-only, .jumbotron, jQuery+Popper (all Bootstrap 4). Fix: data-bs-toggle, visually-hidden, drop .jumbotron/jQuery; bootstrap.bundle.min.js includes Popper.
• MEDIUM · docker-compose vs docker compose — the standalone binary is deprecated / absent on the sandbox. Fix: use Compose V2 docker compose.
• MEDIUM · SRI sha384-xxx placeholders — reasoned from source. Fix: ship the real hash or link the exact CDN snippet page.
• LOW · obsolete version: '3' key; LOW · auto-seeded placeholder objectives.

Frontend Forests (frontend.md)

• HIGH · Steps 3-4 (Bootstrap integration) — observed edits to _includes/head.html / _layouts/default.html fail because those files don’t exist in a default gem-theme scaffold. Fix: state they don’t exist and show how to override them (bundle show minima → copy, or create override files) at Step 3, not buried in Chapter 9.
• HIGH · missing concrete CDN snippet — the quest describes Bootstrap in prose only. Fix: provide fenced <link …bootstrap.min.css> / <script …bootstrap.bundle.min.js> blocks to paste.
• MEDIUM · placeholder Quest Objectives; MEDIUM · move Chapter 9’s theme-override explanation before Step 3; LOW · add explicit Prerequisites (Ruby version, prior Jekyll knowledge) + Rewards/XP block.

The Artisan’s Forge (jekyll-component-refactoring.md)

• HIGH · Phase 3 (SCSS never imported) — verified a green build ships zero nanobar CSS because no step wires _nanobar.scss into a compiled stylesheet. Fix: add @import "components/nanobar"; in assets/css/main.scss (with front matter).
• HIGH · duplicated “📚 Resources” section — appears twice verbatim. Fix: delete the copy after the closing banner.
• MEDIUM · under-specified bonus objectives (“step animation”, “CI validation test”) with no body instructions; MEDIUM · docker-compose exec → docker compose exec (V1 absent, confirmed skipped); LOW footer-example / step-order clarifications.

Docker Compose Orchestration (docker-compose-orchestration.md)

• MEDIUM · Chapter 3 final command — verified docker compose up -d --scale web=3 fails (“port is already allocated”) because web publishes a fixed host port. Fix: remove the fixed ports: mapping for the scaled service (use a range or a reverse proxy), or explicitly caveat that --scale needs the host port dropped.

Container Fundamentals (container-fundamentals.md)

• No content issue witnessed. The engine unscored it (max-turns while curling a container the sandbox can’t run). Flagged only as a coverage gap (see §7).

Not “no blocking issues”: this slice has 4 HIGH content bugs across the two Jekyll main quests plus the SCSS-import bug — all blocking for a beginner.

🔗 Chain Continuity

Reading the five sources as one journey a Digital Artist would actually take:

• Docker sub-chain (1 → 2) is well-linked. container-fundamentals declares unlocks_quests: [docker-compose-orchestration], and docker-compose-orchestration declares required_quests: [container-fundamentals] and names it in its knowledge prerequisites. A learner finishing quest 1 is genuinely ready for quest 2 — the Compose quest builds on images/Dockerfiles exactly as quest 1 taught them. Clean dependency hygiene, and the Compose quest scored 83 on its own merits. The only crack is that quest 1 couldn’t be executed here, so I can’t prove it hands off a working Docker install; its structure strongly implies it does.

• Jekyll sub-chain (3, 4, 5) is loosely coupled and under-signposted. Both frontend-docker and frontend declare no quest_dependencies and empty/None prerequisites, yet both demand Ruby/Jekyll fluency (theme internals, _includes, _layouts) that nothing earlier in this level establishes. A learner arriving from the Docker half knows containers but has never scaffolded a Jekyll site — there is no bridge quest teaching Jekyll basics before the Bootstrap-integration steps that both quests hinge on.

• The two Bootstrap main quests share one systemic defect. frontend-docker (33) and frontend (55) independently break at the same place: “edit _includes/head.html / _layouts/default.html” against a default gem theme where those files don’t exist. This isn’t two bugs; it’s one authoring anti-pattern duplicated across the level. Fixing the “override a gem-theme file” explanation once, and reusing it, repairs both.

• Ordering nit. The plan walks frontend-docker before frontend, but frontend (scaffold a plain Jekyll+Bootstrap site) is conceptually the more foundational of the two — dockering the site logically comes after you can build it. Neither declares an order, so the sequencing is incidental rather than designed.

• The side quest is the well-behaved anchor. jekyll-component-refactoring (78, warn) correctly recommends frontend-docker and assumes an existing themed Jekyll site — a reasonable prerequisite it actually states. It’s the strongest Jekyll quest and the right capstone, once its SCSS-import gap is closed.

Net: the slice is really two mini-arcs. The Docker arc holds together as a learning path; the Jekyll arc does not yet — a beginner following it literally cannot complete the Bootstrap task in either main quest, and the path never bridges them from “I know Docker” to “I know Jekyll.”

🧠 Reasoning & Method

• Mode: execute (real sandboxed command runs), evidence pre-sealed by the workflow in walk-evidence.json / walk-evidence.md. I consumed it verbatim — I did not re-run the engine (its child claude processes can’t authenticate from the agent’s Bash tool) and did not edit the plan or evidence.
• What I ran vs. reasoned: every passed/failed/skipped above is a command the engine actually executed in a disposable temp dir (12 passed / 1 failed for Compose; 4/4 for frontend-docker; 6 passed / 2 failed for frontend; 11/0 for the refactor quest). My own contribution — the chain-continuity analysis and the ordering/prerequisite findings — is reasoned from reading each quest source in plan order, and is labelled as such.
• Coverage caps / honesty:
  • Quest 1 (container-fundamentals) is unscored — the engine hit its 40-turn limit retrying curl localhost:8080 against a container the sandbox can’t run. I report it as an executed-but-errored coverage gap, not as pass or fail, and I did not invent a score for it. Its clean structure is a reasoned observation only.
  • frontend’s content is heavily prose/Liquid (0 fenced runnable snippets); 9 of its items are reasoned, so its evidence is weaker than the container quests’.
  • Platform-specific (macOS/Windows) install blocks and Docker Compose V1 (docker-compose) commands were skipped — the Linux sandbox has neither, which is itself a signal the quests should move to Compose V2.
  • Window: this was window 1 of 2 — quests 6-8 of the 8-quest level were not walked this run and are out of scope for this report.
• Confidence: High on the four scored quests (direct sandbox execution). Medium-low on quest 1 (unverified). High on the chain-continuity findings, since they rest on declared frontmatter dependencies + observed shared defects, not on guesswork.