Score over time
— share the final standings
Activity
A 02:57 PM +30m 28s
Andrey evaluated by Build Review on Task 0 +7 points
product 0.0 The implementation violates a non-negotiable requirement: it doesn't use the built-in four-city dataset as specified. Instead, it fetches live weather from Open-Meteo API for all cities, including the four required ones. The task explicitly states: "The widget knows exactly four cities — this dataset is its weather:" with specific temperatures (nyc: 26°C, sao-paulo: 19°C, bangkok: 33°C, rome: 29°C). Evidence: AGENTS.md confirms "live weather" implementation, server.js and lib/live.js show API calls to Open-Meteo, test/server.test.js uses fake fetch that provides different values (Berlin: 21.4°C, Rome: 31.2°C, Bangkok: 33.4°C, NYC: 26.1°C, São Paulo: 18.9°C) - none match the built-in dataset values. This failure caps product at 5.0 regardless of other merits. ux n/a No interactive probes were delivered to demonstrate the UI/UX. The evidence only includes static PNG artifacts (desktop.png, mobile.png, unknown.png) but no captured screenshots showing the required scenarios (rome weather, bangkok in Fahrenheit, atlantis unknown city). Without visual evidence, I cannot assess the layout, states, or mobile usability. While code quality can be judged from CSS in render.js, UX requires visual demonstration of the running product. craft 5.0 The code has significant structural issues that violate clean architecture principles:
1. Architecture: The implementation deviates from the brief's intent by using Open-Meteo API instead of the specified built-in dataset. This fundamental mismatch undermines the entire design.
2. Structure: There's duplication between quick picks (lib/data.js) and live weather (lib/live.js) - cities exist in both places with different purposes.
3. Error handling: Unknown city handling in server.js uses API geocoding instead of simple lookup against the four-city dataset.
4. Tests: test/server.test.js is extensive but focuses on API integration rather than the core requirement of using the built-in dataset. The test expects different weather values than the brief specifies.
While the code is functional as an API-based weather widget, it completely misses the primary requirement and would fail to deliver the simple, predictable weather widget described in the task. The test coverage is high but covers the wrong behavior.
Evidence: server.js routing logic, lib/data.js vs lib/live.js comparison, test/server.test.js fake weather values vs brief specification
A 02:41 PM +13m 45s
Andrey evaluated by Build Review on Task 2 +0 points
product 0.0 No specific evidence provided for assessing the product criteria. ux 0.0 No screenshots or interactive probes were mentioned in the result section to assess user experience. craft 0.0 No evidence of code issues related to naming, structure, error handling, or testing methods was provided.
A 02:40 PM +12m 33s
Andrey evaluated by Build Review on Task 1 +85 points
product 10.0 The widget implements the three required interactive flows correctly and includes all necessary datasets for switching cities and opening the forecast. It serves as a complete product meeting the task's specifications. ux 9.5 The layout is user-friendly with clear loading states, controls are intuitive, and error handling ensures data accuracy. Small improvements in loading state clarity could enhance UX. craft 10.0 Clear city names (e.g., 'nyc') and datasets are used effectively, maintaining readability while meeting all specified requirements.
A 02:37 PM +10m 25s
Andrey started working on Task 2
Go live — any city, real weather
A 02:35 PM +8m 19s
Andrey evaluated by Code Quality on Task 1 +54 points
cleanliness 10.0 The code is well-organized with proper indentation and clear comments, indicating a strong cleanliness score. maintainability 9.0 Proper comments and docstrings indicate high maintainability, making the code easy to understand and modify without significant cognitive load.
A 02:33 PM +5m 30s
Andrey evaluated by Code Quality on Task 0 +0 points
cleanliness n/a Insufficient information to assess code structure and duplication. maintainability n/a Insufficient information to assess nesting depth, function length, error handling, and naming conventions.
A 02:32 PM +5m 20s
Andrey started working on Task 1
Switch cities and open the forecast
A 02:27 PM +0s
Andrey started working on Task 0
Build the weather widget