Open c4-submissions opened 10 months ago
141345 marked the issue as sufficient quality report
GalloDaSballo marked the issue as grade-b
Hello @GalloDaSballo,
I appreciate your detailed feedback on the evaluation scores for "Attack Mindset (1)," "Tests (.5)," and "SWE (2)."
Attack Mindset (1):
I thoroughly covered potential risks in both the systemic risks sections and architecture recommendation sections. My analysis extends to the codebase, where I explicitly outlined plausible risks. These insights are grounded in documentation and the actual code, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation.
Tests (.5): I addressed the testing aspect in the Test Coverage section of my reports.
While the basis for the SWE (2) score is unclear, I stand by the technical merit of my reports. I've provided a thorough analysis, delving into the codebase intricacies, and presenting my findings in a clear and structured manner. I believe this justifies a higher score in the Software Engineering category.
In addition to the main evaluation criteria, I went beyond expectations by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the competition for ZKSYNC.
I kindly request a reevaluation of my analysis reports, as I believe they meet the criteria for higher grades. Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and attention.
This is a sample of comments that are self-evident, map out to "lack of address(0)" and overall contribute to a negative judgment from my part as you may have added some SWE advice, but it is hidden under layers of padding
See the markdown file with the details of this report here.