[RLHF Feedback]: Lacks low level reasoning during implementation

[deepak2431]

Feedback

What did the agent do well?

• It explored the codebase and correctly identified relevant API resources under apps/backend/resources/dashboard/ such as events.py, communication.py, and wedding.py to use as reference points instead of inventing new patterns.
• It aligned the proposed response structure with existing conventions used across files like pagination.py and filters.py, ensuring consistency in response formatting.
• It used the correct placement for the new logic by targeting apps/backend/resources/dashboard/overview.py, keeping it consistent with how other dashboard resources are organized.

What did the agent do badly?

• It did not produce a low-level implementation plan that maps clearly to file-level changes (e.g., what goes inside overview.py, whether new helpers should be added.
• It started implementation directly in overview.py despite instructions being limited to planning, without validating the approach first.

What does the agent learn?

• It learned how to navigate the codebase and identify reusable patterns from files inside apps/backend/resources/dashboard/, instead of creating inconsistent structures.

As a senior developer, what is the ideal agent’s work behavior?

• A senior-level agent should produce a clear, low-level plan that explicitly maps to files like apps/backend/resources/dashboard/overview.py, and references supporting modules such as events.py, communication.py, or shared utilities if needed.

• It should ask follow-up questions around unclear areas like what sub fields to return from each of the fields like wedding, events, & recent comm messages, instead of assuming behavior.

• Pool version: v1.0.0

• OS/arch: linux/amd64

• Session ID: 019ddcc1-99b0-757f-8161-78bd69b3bc6d

• Agent server: default

• Agent command: /home/mskp/.local/bin/pool

• Model: poolside/laguna-m.1

• Timestamp: 2026-04-30T05:09:30Z

Logs

Attach this zip before submitting:

logs.zip