Software Developer · L0100 · 2026-07-11

Slice developer/0100 · Level 0100 (Frontend & Containers) · Adventurer tier · Engine verdict ❌ fail · Walked 2026-07-11

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

---

🎯 Session Summary

I walked the Developer path at Level 0100 — Frontend & Containers (Adventurer ⚔️ tier), a data-selected window of 5 quests out of the level’s 8 (window 1 of 2). The sealed execute-engine evidence is thin by necessity: of the five planned quests, only one — “Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5” (frontend-docker) — got a full machine-scored verdict, and it failed hard at 30%. Two quests (container-fundamentals, docker-compose-orchestration) errored — the sandbox denied the docker run / curl localhost commands they teach, so the engine burned all 40 turns without producing a per-dimension verdict. The final two (frontend, jekyll-component-refactoring) were never evaluated (auth/budget truncation, auth_truncated: true).

The headline for a maintainer: this slice is two curricula bolted together. The first two quests (container-fundamentals, docker-compose-orchestration, authored 2025–26 by the IT-Journey Team) are modern, dependency-linked, and use current docker compose V2 syntax — I could only reason about them (the sandbox couldn’t run Docker), but they read as coherent and correct. The next two (frontend-docker, frontend, authored 2024 by “GPT and bamr87”, both draft: true) are legacy, placeholder-objective drafts that actively contradict what the polished quests just taught — and the one that was executed proves it: nearly every load-bearing command in frontend-docker fails as written. Overall verdict: fail, driven by the one hard machine failure plus a real chain-continuity break, but with the loud caveat that coverage was partial.

🗺️ The Journey

Plan order (from walk-plan.json, dependency-sorted):

1. ⚠️ Docker Container Fundamentals: Images to Registries · container-fundamentals · errored (no score) · Engine hit max_turns after the sandbox denied docker run --name web -d -p 8080:80 nginx:alpine and curl http://localhost:8080 — an environment limit, not evidence of a quest defect. Reads as strong, modern, well-sequenced.
2. ⚠️ Docker Compose Orchestration: Multi-Container Apps · docker-compose-orchestration · errored (no score) · Same failure mode — curl -s http://localhost:8080/ denied, max_turns. Properly depends on quest 1; modern docker compose V2 + compose.yaml. No machine verdict.
3. ❌ Dockering Jekyll with Bootstrap 5 · frontend-docker · 30% · The only fully-scored quest. Fails at almost every load-bearing command: jekyll new . conflict, cd my-jekyll-site into a directory that never existed, and the capstone docker-compose up crashing with Bundler::GemNotFound.
4. ⏭️ Frontend Forests: Building a Jekyll Site with Bootstrap · frontend · not evaluated (auth truncation) · Reasoned only: high-level outline, placeholder objectives, requires a native Ruby install that contradicts quest 3’s “no Ruby required” premise.
5. ⏭️ The Artisan’s Forge: Refactoring Jekyll Theme Components · jekyll-component-refactoring · not evaluated (auth truncation) · Reasoned only: well-structured side quest that recommends the broken frontend-docker as a prerequisite.

Machine tally (from walk-evidence.json): 3 evaluated / 5 requested · 0 pass · 0 warn · 3 fail · avg 30.0% · ~$1.06 · truncated: true, auth_truncated: true.

🔬 Evidence

Quest 1 — container-fundamentals (errored, no verdict)

• Ran: engine attempted the Chapter 1 commands; the sandbox issued permission_denials for docker run --name web -d -p 8080:80 nginx:alpine, docker ps, and curl -s http://localhost:8080 / curl http://localhost:3000. terminal_reason: max_turns, errors: ["Reached maximum number of turns (40)"].
• Outcome: No verdict_obj, no per-dimension scores, no snippet coverage. I have zero machine evidence for or against this quest’s correctness — the engine was blocked by Docker being unavailable/denied in the sandbox, which is an infrastructure limit rather than a content defect.

Quest 2 — docker-compose-orchestration (errored, no verdict)

• Ran: engine attempted the Chapter 1 stack; permission_denials for sleep 1; curl -s http://localhost:8080/ … (×2). terminal_reason: max_turns, same “Reached maximum number of turns (40)” error.
• Outcome: No verdict_obj. Same caveat as quest 1 — errored on the sandbox’s inability to run the containers, not on anything the quest got wrong.

Quest 3 — frontend-docker (scored 30%, fail) — the real evidence

Executed for real, 30 turns, ~381s. Per-dimension scores (0–4): commands_work 1, content_accuracy 1, completeness 1, clarity 2, structure 2, safety 4. Commands actually run:

Command (as the quest teaches it)	Status	Observed
docker-compose.yml (version: '3', image: jekyll/jekyll:latest)	passed (with warning)	Accepted, but docker compose warns “the attribute ‘version’ is obsolete, it will be ignored”.
docker-compose run jekyll jekyll new .	failed	Literal docker-compose → command not found (exit 127; only V2 docker compose exists). Even with V2: Conflict: /srv/jekyll exists and is not empty; only succeeded after adding an undocumented --force.
cd my-jekyll-site	failed	bash: cd: my-jekyll-site: No such file or directory — Step 2 ran jekyll new . (current dir), so this subfolder never existed.
Dockerfile (Step 2.1)	reasoned	Valid syntax but dead weight — docker-compose.yml uses image: not build: ., so it is never used.
_includes/head.html (Bootstrap include)	reasoned	Created, but is Bootstrap 4 boilerplate (jQuery + Popper, old CDN) mislabeled Bootstrap 5; integrity="sha384-xxx" placeholders.
index.html (navbar + jumbotron + {​%raw%​}{​% include %​}{​%endraw%​})	failed	No YAML front matter → Jekyll never runs it through Liquid. Verified via cat _site/index.html: {​%raw%​}{​% include head.html %​}{​%endraw%​} appears verbatim in the output. footer.html referenced but never created. Also collides with the auto-generated index.markdown (build-time Conflict warning).
git init && git add . && git commit && git remote add origin …	skipped	init/add/commit/remote-add all succeeded locally; only the final git push to the placeholder remote was (correctly) not run.
docker-compose up (capstone)	failed	Reproduced twice: 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 …, exit 1. Gems from the ephemeral docker-compose run … new container are never persisted; up starts a fresh jekyll/jekyll:latest with no build step, so the site never serves.

Snippet coverage: the engine reports 5/4 (4✗) runnable snippets — i.e. it exercised the load-bearing commands and 4 failed. Engine summary: “This quest fails at almost every load-bearing command when actually executed … Nearly every step needs a fix before a learner could complete this quest as written.”

Quests 4 & 5 — frontend, jekyll-component-refactoring (not evaluated)

No engine evidence — auth_truncated: true stopped the run after quest 3. Everything I say about them below is reasoned from reading the source, never tested.

🐞 Issues Found

All items on frontend-docker are tested (observed in the sealed execute run). Items on other quests are reasoned from the quest source.

• HIGH · frontend-docker · capstone docker-compose up — tested. Crashes with Bundler::GemNotFound because docker-compose.yml uses image: jekyll/jekyll:latest and never build: . from the Step 2.1 Dockerfile, and gems from the run … new container are not persisted. The quest’s headline command never serves the site. Fix: build: . from a Dockerfile that bakes RUN bundle install, or share a named volume for /usr/local/bundle.
• HIGH · frontend-docker · Step 2 → Step 3 sequencing — tested. jekyll new . (current dir) followed by cd my-jekyll-site — the directory never exists. jekyll new . also fails on the non-empty mount without an undocumented --force. Fix: either jekyll new into a pre-created empty subdir, or drop the cd; document --force.
• HIGH · frontend-docker · Step 4 index.html — tested. No YAML front matter, so {​%raw%​}{​% include head.html %​}{​%endraw%​} / {​%raw%​}{​% include footer.html %​}{​%endraw%​} are emitted as literal text (cat _site/index.html). footer.html is referenced but never created anywhere. Fix: add front matter (even empty ---), supply footer.html, and reconcile the colliding auto-generated index.markdown.
• MEDIUM · frontend-docker · Bootstrap version drift — tested. Titled “Bootstrap 5” but uses Bootstrap 4 markup throughout: jQuery + separate Popper script, data-toggle/data-target, jumbotron, sr-only; CDN pinned to 5.0.0 on stackpath; integrity="sha384-xxx" placeholders with no instructions to obtain real hashes. Fix: genuine BS5 (bootstrap.bundle.min.js, data-bs-*, utility hero, visually-hidden), current 5.x via jsdelivr, real/omitted SRI.
• MEDIUM · frontend-docker · Compose V1 syntax (chain break) — tested. Uses hyphenated docker-compose throughout (command not found, exit 127 in a modern environment) plus obsolete version: '3'. This directly contradicts docker-compose-orchestration, which explicitly instructs “Use the modern docker compose (space) form, not the legacy docker-compose (hyphen) binary.” Fix: migrate all invocations to docker compose and drop version:.
• LOW · frontend-docker · placeholder objectives — tested/observed. Objectives are the auto-seeded template text with the author note “objectives auto-seeded during framework alignment — authors should refine these.” No verification checkpoints. Fix: concrete outcomes + a “you should now see…” check per step.
• MEDIUM · frontend · placeholder objectives + native-Ruby contradiction — reasoned. Same auto-seeded objectives block. Step 1 tells learners to gem install jekyll bundler and Step 7 to bundle exec jekyll serve — a native Ruby toolchain that contradicts the sibling frontend-docker’s “no Ruby install required” premise, and that the repo itself notes host Ruby can’t build (needs Ruby ≥3.2 via Docker). This quest is a high-level outline (no concrete head.html/layout code) where its siblings are step-by-step. Fix: either merge into frontend-docker or clearly frame it as the “native/no-Docker” alternative path with concrete snippets.
• LOW · frontend / frontend-docker · both draft: true with empty dependency graph — reasoned. Neither declares quest_dependencies, so they float free of the strong container-fundamentals → docker-compose-orchestration chain even though they logically build on it. Fix: wire dependencies (or unpublish the drafts) so the level reads as one path.
• LOW · jekyll-component-refactoring · recommends a broken prerequisite — reasoned. recommended_quests: [/quests/0100/frontend-docker/] points learners at the quest that fails to build. Fix: repoint to container-fundamentals/docker-compose-orchestration or fix frontend-docker first.

No safety issues: the executed quest scored 4/4 on safety (all git/Docker ops local and reversible; the only network-mutating git push targets an obvious placeholder remote and was correctly skipped).

🔗 Chain Continuity

Read as one learner’s journey, this slice does not hold together as a single path — it is two tiers of quality glued end to end:

• Quests 1 → 2 are a genuine chain. container-fundamentals declares unlocks_quests: docker-compose-orchestration, and docker-compose-orchestration declares required_quests: container-fundamentals. Quest 1’s Chapter 4 even ends with a minimal compose.yaml and calls it “your on-ramp to the next quest,” and quest 2 opens by assuming you can already build/run a single container. Both use modern docker compose V2, compose.yaml, and consistent port/volume idioms. A learner finishing quest 1 is genuinely ready for quest 2. (I could only reason about this — the sandbox denied Docker, so both quests errored before scoring.)
• The break happens at quest 3. After quest 2 spends a whole section teaching that the hyphenated docker-compose binary is the legacy form to avoid, frontend-docker immediately hands the learner docker-compose run … and docker-compose up — the exact command quest 2 told them not to use, and the one the engine proved returns command not found. A learner who did the chain in order would be actively confused; a learner who lands here cold hits the wall of failing commands documented in §4.
• Quests 3 and 4 overlap and contradict each other. Both claim to “build a Jekyll site with Bootstrap.” frontend-docker sells “no Ruby install required” (Docker); frontend opens with gem install jekyll bundler (native Ruby). Presented as two sibling main quests with identical placeholder objectives, they read as duplicate drafts rather than complementary steps.
• Prerequisite honesty: quests 3–5 all declare empty or thin quest_dependencies, so the dependency graph doesn’t reflect the obvious “learn containers → containerize a frontend” progression. The side quest (5) then recommends the broken quest 3.

Net: the container half of this level is well-built; the frontend/Jekyll half is legacy draft material that undercuts it. A maintainer fixing this slice should treat quests 3–4 as the priority — ideally reconciling them into one path that reuses the modern Compose patterns quests 1–2 establish.

🧠 Reasoning & Method

• Mode: execute, sealed by the workflow. I consumed walk-plan.json + walk-evidence.json / .md as-is — I did not run, regenerate, or edit the engine. My own contribution was reading all five quest sources in plan order and reasoning about the linked journey.
• What is tested vs. reasoned: Only frontend-docker carries machine evidence — every “failed/passed/skipped/reasoned” in §3 for that quest came from a command the engine actually ran in the sandbox. Everything I say about the other four quests is reasoned from the source text and frontmatter, explicitly not tested.
• Coverage is partial — the honest headline: 1 of 5 quests fully scored, 2 errored, 2 never reached.
  • container-fundamentals and docker-compose-orchestration errored on sandbox limits, not content. The engine’s permission_denials show the sandbox refused docker run / curl localhost, so the engine looped to max_turns (40) without a verdict. This means I have no machine evidence about whether those two quests’ commands actually work — I explicitly decline to score them, and my positive read of them is reasoning only. It would be wrong to report them as “passing.”
  • frontend and jekyll-component-refactoring were cut off by auth_truncated: true (the OAuth budget/rate limit stopped the engine after three quests) — a known constraint of this fleet, and why the perfection loop walks a rotating window.
• Overall verdict = fail because the only fully-evaluated quest failed at 30% and the chain has a real, evidenced modernity/consistency break. I did not let the two sandbox-errored quests inflate or deflate the content verdict beyond what I could witness.
• Confidence: high on the frontend-docker findings (reproduced, quoted output); medium on the chain-continuity findings (grounded in quoted quest source but reasoned, not executed); low/withheld on the two errored quests’ command correctness (no evidence either way).
• Limits: review of quests 1, 2, 4, 5 is static; no Docker/network execution was possible for the two container quests in this sandbox; no rendered-page inspection. A re-run with working Docker-in-sandbox and full auth budget would be needed to certify the container half of this level.

Machine evidence excerpt (verbatim from walk-evidence.md): “1 quests evaluated · ✅ 0 pass · ⚠️ 0 warn · ❌ 3 fail · avg 30.0%” — the “1 evaluated” reflects the single scored verdict; the other two “fail” rows are engine errors, not scored verdicts.