For this to "work" you need to have a metric that shows that AIs perform as well, or nearly as well, as with the uncompressed documentation on a wide range of tasks.
For this to "work" you need to have a metric that shows that AIs perform as well, or nearly as well, as with the uncompressed documentation on a wide range of tasks.
Cherry picking a tiny example, this wouldn't capture the fact that cloudflare durable objects can only have one alarm at a time and each set overwrites the old one. The model will happily architect something with a single object, expecting to be able to set a bunch of alarms on it. Maybe I'm wrong and this tool would document it correctly into a description. But this is just a small example.
For much of a framework or library, maybe this works. But I feel like (in order for this to be most effective) the proposed spec possibly needs an update to include little more context.
I hope this matures and works well. And there's nothing stopping me from filling in gaps with additional docs, so I'll be giving it a shot.
You can use success rate % over N runs for a set of problems, which is something you can compare to other systems. A separate model does the evaluation. There are existing frameworks like DeepEval that facilitate this.
Having data is how we learn and build intuition. If your experiments showed that modern LLMs were able to succeed more often when given the llm-min file, then that’s an interesting result even if all that was measured was “did the LLM do the task”.
Such a result would raise a lot of interesting questions and ideas, like about the possibility of SKF increasing the model’s ability to apply new information.
The job of any context retrieval system is to retrieve the relevant info for the task so the LLM doesn't hallucinate. Maybe build a benchmark based on less-known external libraries with test cases that can check the output is correct (or with a mocking layer to know that the LLM-generated code calls roughly the correct functions).
Or better yet, check directly the hidden state difference between a model feed with the original prompt and one with the shrinked prompt.
This should avoid remove the randomness of the results.
Run the same questions against a model with the unminified and the minified and show the results side-by-side and see how, in your subjective opinion, they hold up.
It will include evaluations and a public scoreboard.
It's not usable rn, but feel free to follow: https://github.com/klntsky/prompt-compression-contest/