Provided docker-compose build and run commands
Provided docker-compose build and run commands
Agent
Codex
Model
GPT-5.5
Started
May 20, 6:23 PM
Messages974
Downloads3
Workspace
Verify compose file and service names.
PlanProvide docker compose up command with build flag.
BuildProvide command to run in background with -d flag.
BuildProvide instructions to access the service via localhost.
BuildProvide command to stop the services.
Buildplease read docs/Architecture.md and poke holes in it and improve it for build
I’ll inspect the architecture doc and nearby repo context so the feedback is grounded in what’s actually buildable here. Since we’re in planning mode, I’ll avoid editing files and focus on a concrete improvement plan.
The architecture doc is only four decisions right now, and this repo currently contains docs only. I’m going to read the requirements next because most architectural gaps will come from requirements that aren’t reflected in the build plan.
Requirements introduce several things the architecture doesn’t yet account for: Admin vs VP role terminology, workflow invariants, import/export schema, assignment scoping, and deployment/runtime details. I’m checking line numbers now so the critique can point to exact spots.
<proposed_plan>
Revise docs/Architecture.md from four loose technology notes into a build-ready architecture document for a Django-only HR performance evaluation platform.
The revised architecture should explicitly lock these decisions:
Architecture.md:1 says Django-only but does not define app boundaries, view strategy, forms, templates, static assets, or whether any API surface exists.Architecture.md:3 mentions Django Groups/Permissions but does not resolve the requirements conflict between “three roles” and “four roles” in Requirements.md:55.Architecture.md:5 chooses SQLite without constraints: no persistence volume, backup strategy, concurrency warning, migration policy, or production suitability note.Architecture.md:7 says Dockerized but omits runtime shape: container command, environment variables, static files, migrations, secrets, health checks, and data volume.User, Profile or role membership, EmployeeProfile/employee subject records, ManagerAssignment, Evaluation, workflow state enum, and optional transition metadata.collectstatic, migrations on deploy, persistent volume for SQLite/media, and health/readiness endpoint.User, Group, Permission, login/logout/session machinery, and admin for technical maintenance.docs/Architecture.md into the build-ready architecture above.
</proposed_plan>Implement the plan.
I’ll turn the proposed architecture into the actual docs/Architecture.md now, keeping it build-oriented and aligned with the choices you locked: Django-only, SQLite v1, VP-only business admin, and no Employee login in v1.
I’m replacing the placeholder notes with a full architecture document that names the domain model, authorization checks, workflow rules, import/export approach, deployment shape, and test expectations.
The architecture rewrite is in place. I’ll do a quick read-through for formatting and consistency, then check the diff so I can catch any accidental ambiguity before wrapping up.
Implemented the architecture rewrite in docs/Architecture.md.
It now covers the build-critical gaps: Django monolith shape, role model, Employee-as-subject v1 decision, server-side authorization, domain model, workflow transitions, import/export behavior, SQLite deployment constraints, Docker runtime expectations, security notes, and test strategy.
Verification: read the updated file end to end. git diff was not available because this directory is not a git repository.
remove the 3-app structure, we want to keep this as one simple Django app
I’ll adjust the architecture doc to remove the suggested multi-app split and make the intended implementation a single simple Django app.
The only place that still pushes a three-app layout is the “Suggested Django apps” subsection. I’m replacing that with a single-app structure and keeping the internal module boundaries lightweight.
The doc now says to use a single Django app. I’ll quickly scan the affected section to make sure it doesn’t still imply separate apps elsewhere.
Updated docs/Architecture.md to remove the three-app structure.
It now specifies one simple Django project app for v1, with separation handled through normal modules like models.py, forms.py, views.py, optional services.py, templates/, and static/.
can you please remove the fluff and unnecessary details from docs/Architecture.md
I’ll tighten the architecture doc into a lean build guide: keep decisions and constraints, remove explanatory padding, and avoid repeating the requirements doc.
I’m going to replace the verbose sections with a shorter decision record. It will keep the architecture choices needed to build, but drop rationale and repeated acceptance criteria.
The doc is now condensed. I’ll scan it once to make sure the important build constraints survived and the wording is still direct.
Trimmed docs/Architecture.md down into a concise build-oriented architecture doc.
It keeps the key decisions: single Django app, role model, authorization rules, core models, workflow, import/export, SQLite/Docker constraints, security basics, and test coverage. Removed the longer rationale and repeated requirement-style detail.
Set up git repository and Agentic Engineering structures (i.e. AGENTS.md and .skills if needed) for a Dockerized Django app with SQLite as the backend. One thing to note, always consult, and if needed update, docs/Architecture.md
I’ll read the current architecture and repo state first, then initialize git and add the agent-facing project instructions around the Django/SQLite/Docker direction.
The repo is docs-only right now, and docs/Architecture.md already matches the requested stack. I’m going to initialize git, add a Django/Docker/SQLite .gitignore, and create AGENTS.md with the project rules, including the requirement to consult architecture before changes.
Understood. I’ll treat https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval as the Git remote for this working directory. I’ll first check whether that remote already has history, then initialize this directory and wire origin to it.
The GitHub repo exists and has a main branch. I’m going to initialize this directory as a git repo, add that URL as origin, and fetch origin/main so we can see how the local docs relate to the remote history.
The repo initialized, but updating .git/config is blocked by the sandbox, so I’m rerunning the remote setup with approval.
origin/main is fetched. I’ll inspect the remote file list before adding agent structures so I don’t accidentally contradict existing repo content.
The remote currently only has .gitignore and LICENSE. I’m going to put this working tree on main tracking origin/main, then add the local docs and agent guidance on top.
I’ll use the skill-creator guidance for the project-specific .skills structure so the local skill is minimal and useful instead of decorative.
I’m adding two lightweight structures: root AGENTS.md for always-on repo instructions, and a small .skills/architecture-first skill so future agents have a reusable workflow for Django changes in this project. I’ll also tighten .gitignore for the SQLite/Django/Docker runtime artifacts.
The agent files are in place. I’ll verify the final repo shape and git linkage now.
Set up the local git repo against https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval.
What changed:
main tracking origin/main.*.sqlite3, journals, media/, staticfiles/, and data/.Current git state is uncommitted:
## main...origin/main M .gitignore?? .skills/?? AGENTS.md?? docs/I did not commit or push.
you can commit pls
I’ll stage the setup files and create a commit on main with the agent/architecture scaffolding.
I verified the pending changes are the expected repo setup files. I’m staging them now; git metadata writes may need escalation in this sandbox.
The intended files are staged: docs, agent instructions, local skill, and .gitignore additions. I’m creating the commit now.
Committed.
Commit:
4d6964c Add architecture and agent setupCurrent state:
main...origin/main [ahead 1]I did not push to GitHub.
Create a succinct Data Model for this application in the Arch file.
I’ll update the architecture doc directly, keeping the data model succinct and aligned with the existing single-app Django/SQLite direction.
I’m replacing the loose Core Models section with a compact data model that names entities, key fields, and relationships without turning it into a full schema dump.
The data model section is updated. I’ll scan the file and show the resulting diff so I can catch any over-detail or contradiction.
Added a succinct Data Model section to docs/Architecture.md.
It now defines User, Employee, ManagerAssignment, and Evaluation, plus the key relationships and ownership rules. No commit was made.
creat the base Django app based on docs/Architecture.md, do not create any of the features yet, just the barebones app.
I’ll start by re-reading the architecture and current repo state, then scaffold only the Django/Docker skeleton: project config, one product app, dependency files, Docker entrypoint, and a smoke test.
The architecture has one existing uncommitted change: the data model section from the prior request. I’ll leave it intact and add the barebones app around it.
Django is not installed locally, so I’m going to scaffold the files manually instead of relying on django-admin. I’ll keep it barebones: no domain models or workflows yet, just runnable Django configuration, one empty product app, login wiring, a health check, Docker files, and smoke tests.
The skeleton is now in place. I’ll run the Django tests through uv so dependencies are resolved in the project environment, then fix any scaffold issues that show up.
Tests pass. I noticed the generated app config class name is too generic, so I’m tightening that small scaffold detail before the final check.
The scaffold cleanup is done. I’ll rerun tests and check the working tree, including any dependency lockfile created by uv.
The Django smoke tests pass. I’m going to verify the Docker build path as well, since this scaffold includes the container setup.
Docker deployment should be set up through docker-compose.
Got it. I’ll make Docker Compose the explicit deployment path, update the architecture doc accordingly, and adjust the compose setup so it is suitable as the primary way to run the app.
Compose is already present, but it is too minimal for a deployment path. I’m going to make Compose explicit in the architecture, add .env.example, add a healthcheck/restart policy, and wire static file serving through WhiteNoise so the Gunicorn container can serve collected static assets.
Compose is now the deployment contract, and the Django container can serve collected static files. I’ll refresh the Python lock/test environment with the new dependency and rerun the smoke tests.
The tests pass, but WhiteNoise emitted a local warning because staticfiles/ does not exist outside a built image. I’m tightening settings so WhiteNoise is active for production/Compose only, and making Compose use .env interpolation without requiring a checked-out .env file.
The local Django tests pass cleanly now. I’ll do a final status and file check so the summary is accurate.
Created the barebones Django app based on docs/Architecture.md, without implementing product features.
Included:
config/app//health/pyproject.toml, requirements.txt, and uv.lockcompose.yaml as the deployment path with SQLite volume, env config, restart policy, and healthcheck.env.exampleAlso updated docs/Architecture.md to say Docker Compose is the deployment mechanism.
Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 3 tests: OKI did not commit these changes. Docker build was not verified because Docker daemon access requires approval.
show me how to start this server, Run migrations, start the server, and show me the command.
Run it locally with uv:
uv run python manage.py migrateuv run python manage.py runserverThen open:
http://127.0.0.1:8000/For Docker Compose:
docker compose up --buildThe Compose entrypoint runs migrations automatically before starting Gunicorn. The app will be at:
http://127.0.0.1:8000/create a superadmin user sahand with 12345678
I’ll run migrations first so the auth tables exist, then create or update the sahand superuser with that password.
Created/updated the Django superuser:
username: sahandpassword: 12345678Migrations were already applied.
Based on architecture.md, implement the data model for this app.
I’ll re-read the architecture and current Django scaffold, then add only the models/migration/admin surface for the documented data model.
The architecture calls for Django User plus three domain models: Employee, ManagerAssignment, and Evaluation. I’m adding those with the documented fields and minimal model-level constraints, then generating the initial migration.
The models, admin registration, and model tests are in place. I’m generating the initial app migration now and then I’ll run the test suite.
The migration matches the intended three domain tables. I’ll run Django tests now; if the database constraint test needs a transaction-safe pattern, I’ll adjust it.
One existing smoke-test assertion ended up inside the new model test during the edit. I’m fixing that test placement and rerunning.
The model tests pass. I’ll apply the new migration to the local SQLite database as well, then check the final working tree.
Implemented the data model from docs/Architecture.md.
Added:
EmployeeManagerAssignmentEvaluationEvaluation.State choices: Draft, In Review, ApprovedValidation run:
uv run python manage.py testRan 7 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py migrateApplying app.0001_initial... OKNo commit was made.
commit the changes, they look good.
I’ll stage the data model implementation and commit it cleanly.
The staged set is only the data model, migration, admin, and tests. I’m committing it now.
Committed.
523e97e Implement core data modelCurrent state:
main...origin/main [ahead 4]share this session using traces share
I’ll run traces share from the project directory and report the resulting share output.
traces share needs an explicit target, so I’ll retry with the current working directory as the source.
The CLI expects a directory value for --cwd; I’ll pass the project path explicitly.
traces share failed because the CLI is not authenticated:
Share failed (AUTH_REQUIRED): Not logged in. Run 'traces login' first, pass --key <trk_...>, or set TRACES_API_KEY.I also confirmed the correct command shape is:
traces share --cwd /Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platformRun traces login first, or provide a key via --key / TRACES_API_KEY, then rerun that command.
create the Manager "todo" dashboard so they can see their employees and can start a new eval.
I’ll read the architecture and current Django code first, then add the smallest manager dashboard flow: assigned employees list plus a “start evaluation” action that creates a draft evaluation.
The worktree is clean and the architecture supports this as manager-scoped creation for assigned employees. I’ll inspect the current views, URLs, models, and tests before patching.
I’ll implement this as a manager-scoped “todo” dashboard: active assignments for the signed-in user, latest evaluation status per employee, and a POST button that creates a new Draft evaluation only for an assigned active employee.
The dashboard route and start action are patched. I’ll run the Django tests now and adjust anything the suite catches.
Tests pass. I’ll do a final status check and review the diff footprint so I can summarize exactly what changed.
Implemented the manager “todo” dashboard.
Changes:
Start new eval button.employees/<id>/evaluations/start/.Draft Evaluation, but only for an active employee assigned to the current user.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 10 tests: OKNo commit was made.
apply elegant styling like the website 8090.ai. keep the stylesheet CSS code minimal, but follow the design.
I’ll quickly inspect 8090.ai’s current visual direction, then add a small CSS layer to the existing Django templates without changing the app behavior.
The 8090 site currently reads as a restrained enterprise landing page: dark/neutral base, large confident type, thin borders, compact nav/buttons, and minimal ornamentation. I’m applying that as a lightweight app stylesheet rather than copying any assets.
The working tree is clean, so I’m going to add one stylesheet and small semantic classes in the base/dashboard/login templates.
The minimal styling layer is in place. I’ll run the test suite to make sure template changes didn’t break routes or assertions.
The template is fine; tests exposed that the production static-files storage is active in local test runs without a collected manifest. I’m making the WhiteNoise manifest storage production-only so local/dev/test can resolve static files directly.
The test suite passes now. I’ll also run collectstatic once to catch any production static-file issues with the new stylesheet.
Applied a minimal 8090.ai-inspired visual style.
Changed:
Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 10 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput128 static files copiedReferenced the current 8090.ai page for visual direction: https://www.8090.ai/
No commit was made.
make the buttons less rounded please.
I’ll reduce the button radius in the shared stylesheet so actions feel more like the rest of the 8px-panel UI.
great... apply the same stying to Django Admin too!
I’ll extend the same visual system into Django Admin through Django’s admin template override, keeping it as a small CSS layer rather than changing admin behavior.
I’m going to override the admin base template just enough to load a project admin stylesheet, then keep the CSS focused on colors, panels, tables, forms, and button radius.
The admin override and stylesheet are in place. I’ll run tests and collect static files to verify the template/static references are valid.
Validation passes. I’ll check the final diff footprint so the summary is precise.
Applied the same dark 8090-inspired styling to Django Admin.
Added:
UW Eval AdminValidation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 10 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput2 static files copied, 127 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
commit changes
I’ll stage the styling changes and create a commit.
The staged set is the app/admin styling and the staticfiles setting adjustment. I’m committing it now.
Committed.
a48a6ff Style app and admin UICurrent state:
main...origin/main [ahead 6]starting a new eval is not opening an actual form where i, as the manager, can enter input. can you please create the form (with Save As Draft, and Submit For Review)
I’ll wire the start action into an actual manager-owned draft editor, with two submit paths: save as draft and submit for review. First I’m checking the current architecture and dashboard flow so the implementation stays aligned.
I’m adding a Django forms.py backed by Evaluation.form_data, then changing start to open the draft editor instead of returning to the dashboard. The editor will only be available for the owning manager’s Draft evaluations.
The form flow is implemented. I’m updating tests now to cover the redirect into the editor, saving draft data, submitting for review, and rejecting edits outside manager-owned Draft evaluations.
The new form flow passes tests. I’ll run collectstatic because the stylesheet changed, then check the final diff footprint.
Implemented the actual manager evaluation form flow.
What changed:
Start new eval now creates a Draft and redirects to an edit form.Evaluation.form_data.Save as draft and Submit for review actions.Draft.In Review, and sets submitted_at.Continue eval for an existing draft.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 15 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
the eval form must match all the fields in this file: https://sojoodi.com/vibes/uw/end-term.html (in the future we will have other types of evals too but for now this is the only one)
I’ll inspect the UW end-term form source and map its fields into the current Django form. Since future eval types are mentioned, I’ll keep this as the first concrete form shape without overbuilding a type system yet.
The browser fetch missed the page cache, so I’m going to read the HTML with curl and inspect the form fields directly.
The HTML delegates the competency sections and checkbox options to forms.js, so I’m going to fetch that too and extract the exact generated fields/options.
I have the exact end-term structure now: placement fields, supervisor fields, 20 competency ratings across 4 sections, top-3 strengths/development, overall evaluation, student comments, and future employment potential. I’m replacing the placeholder evaluation form with that full field set while keeping persistence in Evaluation.form_data.
The full UW field set is now represented in the Django form. I’m updating the tests from the old placeholder field names to the UW field keys and adding coverage for submit-required fields.
I’m adding a little CSS for grouped sections, checkbox/radio lists, and sticky form actions so the now-long form remains readable.
The full form and styling are in place. I’ll run tests now; any failures should mostly be template/form validation details.
Tests pass. I’m going to run collectstatic and inspect the final diff so I can verify the static/template additions are complete.
Updated the manager evaluation form to match the UW end-term form at https://sojoodi.com/vibes/uw/end-term.html.
Implemented:
In Review.Evaluation.form_data using the source field keys like pi_student, q_strengths, q_overall_rating, etc.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 17 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
make the radio buttons on the eval form more elegant and user friendly. They should be similar to the HTML file I shared earlier.
I’ll restyle the competency radio lists into selectable rating cards like the reference form, keeping the Django form data and validation unchanged.
Django’s default radio rendering is producing simple list items. I’m adding per-choice metadata in the form and rendering custom labels/cards in the template, so each option has a compact score and descriptive text like the reference.
The rating controls now render as custom cards while still posting standard radio values. I’ll run the tests and static collection to verify the form still saves and renders correctly.
Made the competency radio controls match the shared HTML form more closely.
What changed:
N.O., 1, 2, 3, 4) plus the label.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 17 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedaudit the form and templating code and make sure it's minimal and elegant.
I’ll audit the current form/view/template/CSS path against the architecture, then trim or refactor anything that is unnecessarily complex while preserving the current behavior and tests.
The main cleanup opportunity is the form template: it manually lists every normal field, while the form already owns the field definitions. I’m moving section grouping into the form class so the template can just render sections, keeping the UW field keys and behavior unchanged.
That removes most of the repetitive template wiring. I’ll run the suite now to make sure Django’s template rendering and all form submissions still behave exactly as before.
The tests pass after the template refactor. I’m doing one more pass for small readability issues in the view/form code before final validation.
I found two more small simplifications: avoid template slice logic by giving the template named section lists, and avoid reading the POST action twice in the view. I’m applying those now.
The cleanup is in place. I’ll run tests and static collection again to confirm there’s no behavior drift.
Audited and tightened the form/template path.
What I changed:
Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 17 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput0 static files copied, 129 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
commit new changes to git
I’ll stage the evaluation form flow, templating cleanup, and tests, then commit them.
The staged set is the full evaluation form feature and its styling/tests. I’ll create the commit now.
Committed.
9f1542a Add manager evaluation formCurrent state:
main...origin/main [ahead 7]i cant git push because the remote is setup as https. can you change it to git?
I’ll switch the origin remote from HTTPS to SSH so git push uses your GitHub SSH auth.
Updated origin to SSH:
origin [REDACTED]:ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval.git (fetch)origin [REDACTED]:ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval.git (push)You should be able to run:
git pushcreate a manager user (non VP). username joe_mgr and password 12345678
I’ll create or update a normal active Django user named joe_mgr with staff/superuser disabled and add them to the Manager group.
Created/updated the non-VP manager user:
username: joe_mgrpassword: 12345678group: Manageris_staff: Falseis_superuser: FalseCan you explicitly define Manager role as a Group so that we rely on that as a way to designate people as Manager? That way, in the future, we can have more roles in the application if needed.
I’ll make the Manager role a first-class Django Group concept in code and docs: create it by migration, centralize the group name/helper, and require that group for manager dashboard/evaluation actions.
I’m going to add role constants/helpers and a data migration that creates the role groups. Then the manager dashboard and eval actions will reject users unless they belong to the Manager group.
The view guards now depend on the group, so I’m updating the view tests to create real Manager users through that group and adding a negative test for non-managers.
The tests are now group-aware. I’ll run migrations and the test suite to verify both existing databases and fresh test databases create the role groups correctly.
Migrations and tests pass. I’ll check the final diff and verify the local joe_mgr user still has the Manager group after the migration.
Implemented Manager as an explicit Django Group.
Changes:
manager_required.VP, Manager, and Employee groups.Manager group.403.VP, Manager, and Employee as role groups.Validation:
uv run python manage.py migrateApplying app.0002_create_role_groups... OK
uv run python manage.py testRan 18 tests: OKAlso verified local joe_mgr:
joe_mgr ['Manager'] is_staff=False is_superuser=FalseNo commit was made.
the webapp now gives permission denied 403. the logged in user is sahand (which is is in the VP role)
I’ll adjust the dashboard routing so VP users are not blocked by the Manager-only dashboard. Since VP workflows are not built yet, VP should get a simple authenticated VP landing page instead of a 403.
The bug is that the root dashboard became Manager-only. I’m splitting it into a role-aware dashboard: Managers see the todo list, VPs get a VP landing page for now, and only evaluation actions remain Manager-only.
The root dashboard is now role-aware, and Manager-only actions still use the Manager guard. I’ll run the tests and verify sahand’s current groups locally.
Tests pass and sahand is in VP, so the root page should now render the VP placeholder dashboard instead of 403. I’ll collect static and check the final diff.
Fixed the 403 for sahand.
What happened: the root dashboard was guarded as Manager-only, so a VP user was correctly authenticated but blocked from /.
What changed:
dashboard is now role-aware:
Manager group sees the manager todo dashboard.VP group sees a simple VP placeholder dashboard.start_evaluation and edit_evaluation remain Manager-only.is_vp() role helper.Verified locally:
sahand ['VP'] True TrueValidation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 20 tests: OKNo commit was made.
Allow users to log out
I’ll add a visible logout control to the shared header and verify it works with Django’s POST-only logout view.
Django’s logout view is already routed, but there’s no UI to invoke it. I’m adding a small POST logout form in the header and tests for the logout behavior.
Logout UI is added. I’ll run tests and collect static files to verify the header form and route work.
Added logout support in the app UI.
Changes:
Log out POST button for authenticated users.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 22 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
improve the design please right now it looks like a name and the logout link under it.
I’ll tighten the header layout so the username and logout action read as a single compact account control, not stacked text.
The account area now uses a single bordered pill group with the username and logout action side by side. I’ll run the tests quickly since the logout text assertion depends on this header.
Improved the logout/header design.
The signed-in area now renders as a compact account control:
Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 22 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedwhen a form is submitted for review, it needs to be put in the In Review state and no longer editable by the Manager.
I’ll verify the current submit/edit path against the architecture, then tighten the dashboard so a submitted evaluation cannot be opened or replaced with a fresh draft from the same row.
The submit path already moves the record to In Review and direct edit URLs reject non-Draft records. The gap is the dashboard action: it offers Start new eval whenever the latest evaluation is not editable, including In Review. I’m changing that row to show a locked/submitted state instead.
The dashboard now treats submitted evaluations as locked. I’ll run the test suite to confirm the submit transition, edit rejection, and dashboard state all line up.
Tightened this behavior.
The submit path already changed the evaluation to In Review and blocked direct edit URLs for non-Draft evaluations. The remaining issue was the dashboard: once an evaluation was In Review, it showed Start new eval, which made the row look actionable.
Now:
In Review.Locked for review.Continue eval or Start new eval for that submitted evaluation.In Review evaluations remain blocked.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 23 tests: OKWhen a review is locked and is in review, the manager should be able to view it, or preview it rather, have the ability to see the submitted review is. And they should also have the ability to unlock it so that they can edit more and then submit it again.
I’ll update the architecture first because this changes the workflow rule: Managers will be allowed to move their own In Review evaluation back to Draft before VP approval. Then I’ll add a read-only preview and unlock action.
There are already two uncommitted files from the previous dashboard lock change, so I’ll build on top of those instead of overwriting them. I’m going to reuse the existing evaluation form in read-only mode for preview to keep the templates small.
I’m adding two manager routes now: a read-only preview for the submitted evaluation and a POST unlock action that returns the manager’s own In Review evaluation to Draft and redirects to edit.
The dashboard expectation and new preview/unlock tests are updated. I’ll run the suite now; this will catch any template rendering issue with disabled preview fields.
Tests pass. I’ll run static collection and check the final diff.
Implemented the manager preview/unlock flow for submitted evaluations.
Behavior now:
In Review.In Review evaluations.Preview submitted eval for In Review evaluations.Unlock for editing.In Review evaluation back to Draft and redirects to the edit form.Updated docs/Architecture.md to reflect the new manager unlock transition.
Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 26 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
no Eval reviews are showing up for 'sahand' who's the VP.
I’ll add the VP review dashboard so VP users see evaluations in review, can preview them, and have the expected review actions. First I’ll inspect the current preview/form pieces to reuse them cleanly.
VP currently gets only a placeholder. I’ll make the VP dashboard query all In Review evaluations, add a VP preview route using the same read-only template, and add approve/return actions.
The VP dashboard now lists In Review evaluations and has review actions. I’ll add tests for VP visibility, preview, approve, and return-to-draft behavior.
The VP review tests are in place. I’ll run the suite to catch any routing/template mistakes.
The VP review flow passes tests. I’ll collect static and check the working tree summary.
VP users now see evaluations waiting for review.
Implemented:
In Review evaluations.Approve and Return to draft actions.Approved and records approved_by / approved_at.Draft and records returned_by / returned_at.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 31 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
When an eval is approved, it's basically finalized. It cannot be unboxed or edited anymore. It's just final. When that happens, the eval should still show up in both of the manager as well as the VP's eval listing view, but we can only view it. It's read-only.
On both List views (for Manager and VP), the user should see a paginated view of all Evals they are entitled to see. For Manager current and past Evals they created and for VP all evals currently awaiting review and past evals.
I’ll update the architecture and then reshape both dashboards around paginated evaluation lists. Approved evaluations will remain visible but read-only with no unlock/return/edit path.
I’ll keep manager “start eval” available through assigned employees, but make the primary dashboard tables paginated evaluation lists. VP will see In Review and Approved; Manager will see every evaluation they created.
I’m updating the Manager and VP dashboard templates to use paginated evaluation lists, with read-only view actions for approved and in-review records.
The dashboards are now list-based with pagination. I’ll update the tests around manager/VP listing, approved read-only visibility, and pagination.
Tests now cover both paginated lists and approved read-only previews. I’ll run the suite and fix any template/query edge cases.
One test was too broad: it searched for Approve, which also appears in the employee name Approved Student. I’ll tighten that assertion to look for the approval button specifically.
The full dashboard/list behavior now passes tests. I’ll run static collection and check the final change summary.
Implemented the finalized/read-only and paginated listing behavior.
What changed:
My evaluations list showing all evaluations the manager created: Draft, In Review, and Approved.Review queue and history list showing In Review and Approved evaluations.Approved evaluations show up for both Manager and VP as read-only.Approved evaluations cannot be edited, unlocked, returned to draft, or approved again.In Review evaluations remain previewable:
docs/Architecture.md to say approved evaluations are final.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 36 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifiedNo commit was made.
can templates/app/vp_dashboard.html and templates/app/dashboard.html be combined?
I’ll combine the duplicated Manager/VP list table into a shared template partial and keep each dashboard page focused on its own heading plus small role-specific sections.
The common part is the evaluation listing table. I’ll extract that into one partial and pass role-specific context from the existing views; the page templates will stay separate because Manager has the assigned-employees section and VP does not.
The list table is now shared. I’ll run tests to make sure the extracted partial still renders all manager and VP cases.
Yes. I combined the duplicated table into a shared partial.
What changed:
is_vp_list, so VP gets the Manager column and VP review links, while Manager gets edit/view links.Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 36 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput0 static files copied, 129 unmodifiedI’ll fetch the referenced SVG favicon, add it as a static asset, and wire it into the base and admin templates so both the app and Django Admin use it.
The favicon is a small SVG, so I’ll add it directly under app static assets and reference it from the HTML head.
The favicon is wired in. I’ll run tests and collect static files to verify static resolution works.
Added the favicon from the referenced UW form.
Changes:
Validation:
uv run python manage.py testRan 36 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 129 unmodifiedprepare for the ability to have different questionaire templates for evaluations. currently we have only one form, but we'd like to be able to have other forms against which an Employee can be evaluated against. Once an Evaluation Template is finalized, it cannot be edited. That way an Evaluation which was created based on a Template can traceback to the original template.
The questionaires will always be option select (e.g. rating 1-5), checkboxes (e.g. select one or many options) and textboxes.
I’ll inspect the current model/form architecture and docs first, then produce a migration-aware plan for introducing immutable evaluation templates without changing files yet.
The current form is hard-coded in app/forms.py, while Evaluation.form_data is already JSON-backed, so the clean path is to move questionnaire definitions into versioned template records and have Evaluation point at the exact finalized template used at creation. Two product decisions matter before the plan is decision-complete.
<proposed_plan>
Prepare the app for multiple questionnaire templates while preserving the current UW end-term form as the first finalized template.
Use Django Admin for template management in v1. Managers choose from active finalized templates when starting an evaluation. Once a template is finalized, its questionnaire definition is immutable; future changes happen by cloning into a new draft template/version.
EvaluationTemplate model:
name, slug, description, version, is_active, is_finalized, schema, timestamps.schema stores ordered sections/questions/options as JSON.is_active.Evaluation:
template FK with PROTECT.form_data as answers keyed by template question IDs.uw_end_term:v1, finalized and active.EvaluationForm structure with a dynamic form builder from evaluation.template.schema.
select_one, select_many, and text.select_one renders radios/select based on schema display config.select_many validates max selections when provided.text renders single-line or textarea based on schema config.Start new eval.EvaluationTemplate in Django Admin.is_active.form_data.Implement the plan.
I’ll implement this on top of the current feature branch, starting by checking the existing uncommitted state and the architecture so I don’t overwrite prior work.
I’ll turn the template plan into code now: models and migration first, then the dynamic form/view flow, admin support, docs, and tests. I’ll check the current tree and architecture file before editing so the implementation matches the repo as it stands.
The architecture file still had a stale note about normal model fields for the UW form; the new template versioning work will replace that with schema-backed template definitions. I’ve confirmed the app is currently clean on feature/different-eval-forms, so I’ll keep the edits scoped to this feature.
I’m going to add a first-class EvaluationTemplate with immutable finalized versions, then have evaluations point at a template. The current UW end-term questionnaire will be seeded as version 1 and the form renderer will read from that template schema instead of hard-coded class fields.
The tests create evaluations directly in several places. I’ll add a small test helper that supplies the seeded template, then mechanically update those creation calls so the new non-null template relationship is explicit.
The manager flow now opens a template chooser before creating a draft. I also updated the listing to show which template version an evaluation came from so future template variants are visible without opening each record.
Migrations and the full Django test suite pass. I’m doing a final pass over the changed files now to catch any rough edges in templates, admin behavior, or docs before I wrap this up.
Implemented the template-based evaluation plan.
Key changes:
EvaluationTemplate with versioning, active/finalized flags, immutable finalized templates, and clone-as-draft support.Evaluation.template with PROTECT and migrated/backfilled existing evals to the seeded UW end-term v1 template.is_active.docs/Architecture.md data model to reflect templates and schema-backed answers.Verification:
uv run python manage.py makemigrations --check --dry-runuv run python manage.py migrateuv run python manage.py test passes: 40 tests.Ok now can you implement the other template, it's "Mid-term review" and the form is here: https://sojoodi.com/vibes/uw/mid-term.html
I’ll add the Mid-term Review as a second finalized template, using the live HTML as the source of truth and keeping it schema-driven like the end-term form. I’ll re-check the architecture note first, then pull the form fields from the referenced page.
The Mid-term page is much simpler than the end-term form: placement/student name, submitter name, two required select questions, and optional strength/development selects plus comments. I’ll seed it as a separate finalized active template and leave the renderer unchanged because it already supports those field types.
The Mid-term template is now represented in the same schema format and has its own seed migration. I added coverage that it appears in the manager template chooser and can be submitted with its required fields.
Implemented the second finalized template: UW Co-op Employer Mid-term Review, based on https://sojoodi.com/vibes/uw/mid-term.html.
What changed:
app/evaluation_templates.py.app/migrations/0004_mid_term_template.py to seed it as active/finalized.Verification:
uv run python manage.py makemigrations --check --dry-runuv run python manage.py migrateuv run python manage.py testTests pass: 43 tests.
it seems like each new eval template will require a change in app/evaluation_templates.py . this should change to a system where Eval Templates are defined as JSON objects in the EvaluationTemplate object in the DB. That way new templates can be defined and edited without the need for code change.
I’ll refactor this so the app consumes the EvaluationTemplate.schema JSON from the database directly, and built-in seeds don’t depend on a Python template registry. That means future templates can be created in Django Admin by adding an EvaluationTemplate row with JSON, then finalizing it.
I’m also going to add schema validation on EvaluationTemplate.clean(). That keeps template authoring in the DB/admin, but prevents malformed JSON from becoming a finalized template that the dynamic form renderer cannot handle.
The runtime form code no longer imports or knows about named templates. Next I’m removing the Python template registry entirely; the only built-in template JSON will live inside historical seed migrations, while live/editable template definitions live in EvaluationTemplate.schema rows.
The refactor is passing tests. I’m doing one final status/diff check to make sure there are no lingering imports or schema definitions in the runtime path.
Implemented the refactor.
What changed:
app/evaluation_templates.py as a runtime template registry.app/template_schema.py for generic schema validation and supported field types only.EvaluationForm now renders directly from EvaluationTemplate.schema in the DB.EvaluationTemplate.clean() validates schema JSON before save/finalize.EvaluationTemplate.schema.Verification:
uv run python manage.py makemigrations --check --dry-runuv run python manage.py testTests pass: 45 tests.
create a succinct Pull Request Title and Message for this branch against main
Title Add database-driven evaluation templates
Message
Introduces versioned EvaluationTemplate records so evaluations are created from finalized JSON-backed templates instead of code-defined forms.
Changes:
EvaluationTemplate.schema.Tested with:
uv run python manage.py testwhat's the command for docker-compose build and run?
I’ll check the compose file names and service names so the command matches this repo instead of guessing.
Build and run:
docker compose up --buildRun in background:
docker compose up --build -dThen open:
http://localhost:8000Stop it:
docker compose down## main...origin/main M .gitignore?? .skills/?? AGENTS.md?? docs/4d6964c Add architecture and agent setupmain...origin/main [ahead 1]uv run python manage.py testRan 3 tests: OKuv run python manage.py migrateuv run python manage.py runserverhttp://127.0.0.1:8000/docker compose up --buildhttp://127.0.0.1:8000/username: sahandpassword: 12345678uv run python manage.py testRan 7 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py migrateApplying app.0001_initial... OK523e97e Implement core data modelmain...origin/main [ahead 4]Share failed (AUTH_REQUIRED): Not logged in. Run 'traces login' first, pass --key <trk_...>, or set TRACES_API_KEY.traces share --cwd /Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platformuv run python manage.py testRan 10 tests: OKuv run python manage.py testRan 10 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput128 static files copieduv run python manage.py testRan 10 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput2 static files copied, 127 unmodifieda48a6ff Style app and admin UImain...origin/main [ahead 6]uv run python manage.py testRan 15 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 17 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 17 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 17 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput0 static files copied, 129 unmodified9f1542a Add manager evaluation formmain...origin/main [ahead 7]origin [REDACTED]:ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval.git (fetch)origin [REDACTED]:ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval.git (push)git pushusername: joe_mgrpassword: 12345678group: Manageris_staff: Falseis_superuser: Falseuv run python manage.py migrateApplying app.0002_create_role_groups... OK
uv run python manage.py testRan 18 tests: OKjoe_mgr ['Manager'] is_staff=False is_superuser=Falsesahand ['VP'] True Trueuv run python manage.py testRan 20 tests: OKuv run python manage.py testRan 22 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 22 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 23 tests: OKuv run python manage.py testRan 26 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 31 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 36 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 128 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 36 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput0 static files copied, 129 unmodifieduv run python manage.py testRan 36 tests: OK
uv run python manage.py collectstatic --noinput1 static file copied, 129 unmodifieddocker compose up --builddocker compose up --build -dhttp://localhost:8000docker compose down