We want to adapt the structure of MetaGPT to be a more suitable fit for a subnet
Validator
Validator will be the project manager
Generates requirements
Makes a project plan
Creates tasks
Decides who to query for each task
Evaluates each task objectively
Miner
Miner can be any of the following roles:
Software engineer (stage 1)
Architect (stage 2)
QA (stage 3)
Querying
For MVP we will keep this simple - miner is just a SE. For this reason we don't need any intelligent routing of queries based on miner roles. We can select any UID(s) for any step.
The other question is whether the same miner builds the entire product or a miner just contributes a single step.
For now, a random subset of miners will be assigned a task during each step.
If our project manager can also create a dependency attribute for each task we can see which tasks can be executed simultaneously. This is cool because then in a single step we can perform multiple tasks.
Evaluation
We will make use of objective measurements to determine the quality of miner completions #1 . This is preferred to a QA agent which still may be wrong about code quality.
It may be easier and more robust if we rely on a github repo as the codebase rather than constantly sharing code snippets and sending over the network #3
MetaGPT
We want to adapt the structure of MetaGPT to be a more suitable fit for a subnet
Validator
Validator will be the project manager
Miner
Miner can be any of the following roles:
Querying
For MVP we will keep this simple - miner is just a SE. For this reason we don't need any intelligent routing of queries based on miner roles. We can select any UID(s) for any step.
The other question is whether the same miner builds the entire product or a miner just contributes a single step.
For now, a random subset of miners will be assigned a task during each step.
If our project manager can also create a dependency attribute for each task we can see which tasks can be executed simultaneously. This is cool because then in a single step we can perform multiple tasks.
Evaluation
We will make use of objective measurements to determine the quality of miner completions #1 . This is preferred to a QA agent which still may be wrong about code quality.
It may be easier and more robust if we rely on a github repo as the codebase rather than constantly sharing code snippets and sending over the network #3