Skip to content

fix(wix-manage): quote bundle-and-save flow description to fix YAML parse error - #829

Open
itayhewix wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix-yaml-pricing-flow-bundle-and-save
Open

fix(wix-manage): quote bundle-and-save flow description to fix YAML parse error#829
itayhewix wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix-yaml-pricing-flow-bundle-and-save

Conversation

@itayhewix

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • description in ecommerce/pricing-promotions/ecom-pricing-flow-bundle-and-save.md contained an unquoted [Goal: Drive Cross-Sells] — a colon+space inside a plain YAML scalar is parsed as a nested mapping key.
  • This breaks frontmatter parsing with Error in user YAML: (<unknown>): mapping values are not allowed in this context.
  • Fixed by wrapping the description in double quotes, matching the convention already used elsewhere (e.g. ecom-load-context.md).

Test plan

  • Verified frontmatter now parses cleanly with yaml.safe_load

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…arse error

The description contained an unquoted "[Goal: Drive Cross-Sells]" — a
colon+space inside a plain YAML scalar is parsed as a nested mapping key,
breaking frontmatter parsing with "mapping values are not allowed in this
context".

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ EvalForge YAML Gate: Eval Comparison

Verdict: not-required | Tag: draft:wix/skills#829

Scenario Required Winner Cost (PR / prod) Tokens (PR / prod) Time (PR / prod) Runs (PR / prod)
ecommerce/pricing-promotions/run-a-sale-drive-cross-sells ⬇️ without (high) $0.605 / $2.172 296.9K / 1059.6K 48.8s / 212.3s PR / prod
ecommerce/pricing-promotions/run-a-sale-drive-cross-sells

pairwise judge: prod wins (high confidence) | Response B is substantially better because it successfully completed the core task (10/10 LLM judge score vs 0/10) by properly loading recipes and persisting recommendations via BatchCreate. While Response A was more efficient in terms of cost and tokens, the complete task failure means efficiency gains are irrelevant. Task completion and tool accuracy are critical for this ecommerce task. | dimensions - task completion: without, tool accuracy: without, error handling: without, efficiency: with | LLM judge fails in PR, passes in prod | LLM judge: 0/10 PR vs 10/10 prod | efficiency (PR vs prod) - cost: $0.6048 vs $2.1720, tokens: 296,915 vs 1,059,604, time: 48.8s vs 212.3s

View run (PR)

View run (prod)

Assertions (PR):

  • ❌ Tool called with param
  • ❌ Tool called with param
  • ❌ LLM judge (0/10): The agent failed to load the required recipes and did not persist or track the proposed recommendations via BatchCreate, resulting in a complete failure.

Assertions (prod):

  • ✅ Tool called with param
  • ✅ Tool called with param
  • ✅ LLM judge (10/10): The agent perfectly classified the goal, loaded the correct recipes, proposed multi-item quantity discounts, and persisted them via BatchCreate before presenting.

Compare result: Response B is substantially better because it successfully completed the core task (10/10 LLM judge score vs 0/10) by properly loading recipes and persisting recommendations via BatchCreate. While Response A was more efficient in terms of cost and tokens, the complete task failure means efficiency gains are irrelevant. Task completion and tool accuracy are critical for this ecommerce task.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant