Game Developer · L0100 · 2026-07-09

Slice game-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 first window (5 of 8 quests) of the Game Developer → Level 0100 (Frontend & Containers, Adventurer tier) slice as a learner, in execute mode, consuming the workflow-sealed evidence in ./walk-evidence.json. The slice splits cleanly into two arcs: a container spine (container-fundamentals → docker-compose-orchestration) and a weaker Jekyll/frontend cluster (frontend-docker, frontend, jekyll-component-refactoring).

Headline verdict: fail. The container spine is pedagogically strong, and docker-compose-orchestration verified live at 75% (warn) with only one real defect. But frontend-docker is broken at nearly every executable step (30%, fail) — confirmed by real sandbox runs — and it is the recommended predecessor for the side quest, so a learner following the chain verbatim hits a wall. Coverage was also incomplete: the engine’s evidence is auth_truncated — it evaluated only 3 of the 5 planned quests, and container-fundamentals errored mid-run (no verdict), so 3 of 5 quests carry only my static (reasoned) reading, not live evidence. A maintainer should (1) treat frontend-docker as needing a substantial rewrite, and (2) re-run the engine to get real evidence for the three unscored quests.

🗺️ The Journey

#	Verdict	Quest	Score	One-line takeaway
1	🟨 reasoned	Docker Container Fundamentals: Images to Registries	—	Engine auth-aborted mid-run (no live verdict); statically a coherent, well-scaffolded quest that ends by handing off to Compose.
2	⚠️ warn	Docker Compose Orchestration: Multi-Container Apps	75	Live-verified across all 3 chapters; one real defect — --scale web=3 fails against the quest’s own static-port compose file.
3	❌ fail	Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5	30	draft: true; happy path broken at almost every step (dead docker-compose CLI, jekyll new . conflict, phantom cd, {​% raw %​}-defeated includes, Bootstrap 4 markup mislabeled v5).
4	🟨 reasoned	Frontend Forests: Building a Jekyll Site with Bootstrap	—	Not evaluated (auth-truncated); draft: true, outline-level with auto-seeded placeholder objectives + empty tags/categories. Solid Chapter 9 theme primer.
5	🟨 reasoned	The Artisan’s Forge: Refactoring Jekyll Theme Components	—	Not evaluated (auth-truncated); statically the strongest of the Jekyll cluster, but ships one deprecated docker-compose exec and a duplicated Resources section.

Legend: ⚠️/❌ = live sandbox verdict from the sealed engine evidence · 🟨 reasoned = my static read only, no commands run this session.

🔬 Evidence

All live outcomes below come from the workflow’s sealed execute-mode run (walk-evidence.json / walk-evidence.md); I did not re-run the engine. Quotes are trimmed from the engine’s recorded findings.

1. Docker Container Fundamentals — ❌ engine error, no verdict (reasoned only)

• Snippet coverage: none recorded — the engine process exited 1 mid-stream (error: "claude exited 1 …", reaching max_turns), and the run as a whole is flagged auth_truncated: true. Recorded tool calls show it got as far as probing node --version, curl --version, and curl -s http://localhost:8080 before the abort.
• No per-dimension scores exist for this quest. I therefore judge it reasoned from the source only (see Issues / Chain Continuity) and make no pass/fail claim about its commands.

2. Docker Compose Orchestration — ⚠️ warn · 75%

• Per-dimension: commands_work 3 · content_accuracy 3 · completeness 5 · clarity 4 · structure 5 · safety 5 · weight_covered 1.0.
• Snippet coverage: ran 16 (available_runnable 8; recorded 20) — 15 passed, 1 failed, 1 skipped, 3 reasoned. Every runnable snippet executed.
• Passed, live: Chapter 1 full stack built and ran with docker compose up -d; docker compose ps showed both services Up and “the Flask counter incremented correctly across three requests (1, 2, 3).” Chapter 2 service discovery by name (redis) worked over a custom network; named-volume persistence verified end-to-end — a Postgres row survived docker compose down and reappeared after up -d, then down -v “verifiably deleted the named volume.” Chapter 3 .env substitution and condition: service_healthy startup gating both confirmed live.
• Failed, live: docker compose up -d --scale web=3 → "Error response from daemon: … Bind for 0.0.0.0:8080 failed: port is already allocated". The web service publishes a fixed host port ("${APP_PORT}:5000"), so scaling cannot work as written.

3. Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 — ❌ fail · 30%

• Per-dimension: commands_work 1 · content_accuracy 1 · completeness 1 · clarity 2 · structure 2 · safety 4 · weight_covered 1.0.
• Snippet coverage: ran 8 (available_runnable 4; recorded 9) — 4 passed, 4 failed, 1 skipped.
• Failed, live:
  • docker-compose run jekyll jekyll new . → "docker-compose: command not found" (sandbox is Docker 28.0.4 / Compose v2.38.2 — only the docker compose space form exists). Every hyphenated invocation fails.
  • Even corrected to docker compose …, jekyll new . → "Conflict: /srv/jekyll exists and is not empty" because the Dockerfile/compose file are bind-mounted in.
  • cd my-jekyll-site → "No such file or directory" — jekyll new . never creates that subfolder.
  • A real jekyll build proved the Step 4 HTML snippet produces invalid nested HTML (literal <p>&lt;!DOCTYPE html&gt;</p>, duplicated <html>/<head>/<body>) because layout: home is left in place, and {​% raw %​}{​% include head.html %​}{​% endraw %​} leaks verbatim into _site/index.html (grep-confirmed) because the {​% raw %​} wrapper defeats the include.
• Passed, live: git init && git add . && git commit … ran cleanly.

4. Frontend Forests — 🟨 not evaluated (reasoned only)

• No engine verdict (run auth_truncated; requested 5, evaluated 3). My read only: draft: true; objectives are the auto-seeded placeholder (“Note: objectives auto-seeded during framework alignment…”); tags: [] and categories: [] are empty; Steps 1–8 are outline-level prose. Chapter 9 (“Reading the Theme’s Spellbook”) is genuinely good, correctly-{​% raw %​}-escaped Liquid teaching. No commands run this session.

5. The Artisan’s Forge — 🟨 not evaluated (reasoned only)

• No engine verdict (same auth truncation). My read only: draft: false, well structured (mermaid map, phased build, config-driven include pattern, scoped SCSS). Two static blemishes: Phase 7 uses the deprecated docker-compose exec … (same hyphen issue proven fatal in quest 3), and the Resources section is duplicated verbatim. No commands run this session.

🐞 Issues Found

Live-evidenced issues (from step-2 sandbox runs) and reasoned issues (from source) are labeled distinctly. I raise nothing I did not either witness in the evidence or quote from the quest.

High

• [live] · Docker Compose Orchestration · Chapter 3 docker compose up -d --scale web=3 — Ran in sandbox and failed: Bind for 0.0.0.0:8080 failed: port is already allocated. The web service publishes a static host port ("${APP_PORT}:5000"), so --scale can’t work against the file the quest just had the reader build. Fix: use a port range ("8080-8082:5000") / drop the direct host publish before demonstrating --scale, or add an explicit note explaining the limitation.
• [live] · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · every docker-compose … call — docker-compose: command not found on a stock modern Docker install. Fix: replace all with docker compose (Compose v2).
• [live] · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · Step 2.3 jekyll new . — Fails Conflict: /srv/jekyll exists and is not empty. Fix: scaffold into an empty subdir, or use jekyll new . --force and explain why.
• [live] · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · Step 3.1 cd my-jekyll-site — No such directory is ever created. Fix: remove the cd, or scaffold with jekyll new my-jekyll-site.
• [live] · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · Step 4 HTML snippet — A real jekyll build showed the {​% raw %​} wrapper prevents the {​% include %​} calls from executing (literal tags leak into _site/index.html), and the full <!DOCTYPE html> doc collides with the untouched layout: home. Fix: drop the {​% raw %​} wrapper and set layout: none (or rewrite as a partial).
• [reasoned] · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · Step 3 Bootstrap version — Markup labeled “Bootstrap 5” uses v4 idioms: data-toggle/data-target (should be data-bs-*), .jumbotron (removed in v5), sr-only (now visually-hidden), plus unnecessary jQuery/Popper. Fix: update to v5 attributes and drop jQuery.

Medium

• [live] · Docker Compose Orchestration · macOS path brew install docker-compose — For colima users this alone doesn’t wire the docker compose plugin the quest insists on. Fix: add the ~/.docker/cli-plugins symlink step.
• [reasoned] · Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · Step 3 integrity hashes — Copy-pasteable integrity="sha384-xxx" placeholders silently break the CDN assets. Fix: ship real hashes or drop the integrity/crossorigin attrs.
• [reasoned] · The Artisan’s Forge · Phase 7 docker-compose exec … — Uses the deprecated hyphenated CLI that was proven fatal in quest 3. Fix: docker compose exec ….

Low

• [reasoned] · Frontend Forests · frontmatter/objectives — draft: true, auto-seeded placeholder objectives, empty tags/categories. Fix: author real objectives + taxonomy before publishing (or keep drafted).
• [reasoned] · The Artisan’s Forge · duplicate Resources section — The Resources block appears twice verbatim. Fix: delete the duplicate.
• [reasoned] · Docker Compose Orchestration · .gitignore guidance — Tells the reader to “add it to .gitignore” without the literal line. Fix: show echo '.env' >> .gitignore.
• [reasoned] · Docker Container Fundamentals · Chapter 3 multi-stage example — The illustrative stage runs npm run build → dist/app.js, but the app.js/package.json taught earlier has no build script or dist/. Fine as illustration, but a learner copying it literally into the Advanced Challenge would stumble. Also a small typo: “a .dockerfile-aware .dockerignore” (should read .dockerignore-aware). Fix: note the example is illustrative / align it with the app.

🔗 Chain Continuity

Container spine (1 → 2): strong. container-fundamentals declares no required predecessor (correct — it’s the arc’s entry) and ends Chapter 4 by introducing a compose.yaml and explicitly signposting “your on-ramp to the next quest, where Compose wires several containers.” docker-compose-orchestration in turn declares required_quests: [container-fundamentals] and opens assuming images/build/run are known. That handoff is clean, and quest 2’s live 75% run confirms the concepts it inherits actually work. The one caveat: I have no live evidence for quest 1 (engine auth-aborted mid-run), so the spine’s first half is confirmed only by static reading.

Jekyll/frontend cluster (3 → 4 → 5): weak and partly broken.

• frontend-docker (quest 3) and frontend (quest 4) are both draft: true and both declare empty quest_dependencies/prerequisites, despite clearly needing Docker (quest 3) or Ruby/Jekyll familiarity (quest 4). They don’t inherit the container spine’s teaching even though they’d benefit from it.
• Quest 3 is the recommended predecessor for quest 5 (jekyll-component-refactoring.recommended_quests: [frontend-docker]), yet quest 3 is exactly the one that fails at 30%. So a learner sent from the side quest back to its recommended setup quest lands on the broken one — the prerequisite pointer leads into a wall.
• Quest 5 assumes “Basic understanding of Jekyll layouts and includes.” That knowledge is actually taught well in quest 4’s Chapter 9, but quest 4 is draft and nothing in the dependency graph orders it before quest 5, so the prerequisite is met only by luck of reading order, not by the chain.
• Ordering note: the planner’s order (3 draft → 4 draft → 5 published side quest) is dependency-plausible (5 recommends 3), but a learner would get the best arc as quest 4 (theme primer) → quest 3 (containerize) → quest 5 (refactor) — and only once quests 3–4 are de-drafted and fixed.

Net: the slice holds together as a containers learning path (1→2) but breaks as a frontend path (3 broken, 4 draft/placeholder, 5 depends on the broken one). This is window 1 of 2 (5 of 8 quests); the remaining 3 quests were not part of this session.

🧠 Reasoning & Method

• What I ran vs. reasoned: I ran no quest commands myself this session. All passed/failed outcomes above are transcribed from the workflow-sealed execute-mode evidence (walk-evidence.json), which the pipeline pre-computed because the engine’s child claude processes can’t authenticate from an agent’s Bash tool. I read all five quest sources in plan order and reasoned about the linked journey (Chain Continuity + all issues tagged [reasoned]).
• Mode: execute (per the sealed evidence). Sandbox: stock Docker 28.0.4 / Compose v2.38.2 on the disposable runner.
• Coverage limits (mandatory honesty): The evidence is auth_truncated: true — the engine requested 5 quests but evaluated 3 and scored 2:
  • docker-compose-orchestration — full live verdict (33 turns, $0.94).
  • frontend-docker — full live verdict (36 turns, $1.35).
  • container-fundamentals — errored mid-run (claude exited 1, hit max_turns); no verdict, judged reasoned only.
  • frontend and jekyll-component-refactoring — never evaluated; judged reasoned only. So only 2 of 5 quests carry live sandbox evidence. The other 3 are static reads and are labeled as such throughout; I make no pass/fail claims about their commands.
• Confidence: High for the two live-scored quests (real commands, real output). Medium for the three reasoned quests — my issues there are quotable from source (draft flags, placeholder objectives, deprecated docker-compose, {​% raw %​} reasoning), but they were not executed this session and deserve a real engine pass.
• Recommended follow-up: re-run the execute engine (fresh token) over the three unscored quests to convert this session’s reasoned findings into live evidence, and prioritize the frontend-docker rewrite before it leaves draft.

---

Machine evidence excerpt (verbatim from walk-evidence.md): “2 quests scored · ✅ 0 pass · ⚠️ 1 warn · ❌ 2 fail · avg 52.5%” — noting the header counts the mid-run error as evaluated; only 2 quests produced a numeric score.