review-usability

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

1. 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.

2. Write real test files in playground/ (see python-playground), named recognisably.

3. Run each under both and diff:

   uv run playground/test_thing.py        # CPython
   cargo run -- playground/test_thing.py  # Monty
   

4. 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.