| name | review-usability |
| description | Check whether the common Python code an LLM would plausibly write still works on this branch, testing real cases in ./playground against CPython. Use to find behaviour that diverges from CPython or trips up ordinary idiomatic code. |
Usability review
Monty exists so LLMs can write Python that calls tools. Real usage is therefore the
most common patterns, not exotic corners — and a divergence in a common pattern is the
worst kind of bug, because the model has no way to know it must write something else.
Think hard on this one.
git diff origin/main...HEAD
-
For each feature the branch touches, list the idioms a model reaches for first — the
obvious method, argument form, combination with another builtin. Include ones the
branch does not handle; that's where the gaps are.
-
Write real test files in playground/ (see python-playground), named recognisably.
-
Run each under both and diff:
uv run playground/test_thing.py
cargo run -- playground/test_thing.py
-
Prioritise silent divergence — same code, different result — over a clean
AttributeError. A missing feature that raises is recoverable; a wrong answer isn't.
An undocumented divergence is also a ./limitations/ finding.
Report
Per divergence: the code, CPython's output, Monty's output, how likely a model is to
write it. Then unsupported-but-common idioms with the error the user sees, and briefly
what worked — it bounds the review. Leave the playground files in place.
Report only, unless the user asks for fixes.
