What DeepSeek Harness failure should we verify next? #99
denial123789
started this conversation in
Ideas
Replies: 1 comment
|
A useful next step is to report the first broken runtime boundary, not only the final error string. The handbook now has an interactive Failure Router that separates provider, tool, approval, sandbox, session, and client failures, then asks for a small evidence bundle: https://sandbaseai.github.io/deepseek-harness-handbook/diagnose.html\n\nIf you have a cold-session or interrupted-tool failure that the router cannot classify, please share the exact symptom and verified dsh revision here. The handbook is independent community documentation, not official DeepSeek AI support. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
The handbook grows from operator evidence, not generic topic lists. If a DeepSeek Harness failure is costing you time, post it here and we will evaluate it for a source-backed runbook.
Please include only sanitized evidence:
Do not include API keys, credentials, private prompts, proprietary source, or complete Session logs without authorization.
We prioritize reports that are reproducible, affect more than one operator, expose an undocumented runtime boundary, and can be verified against official source. Accepted guides will include evidence commands, failure branches, success signals, unsafe shortcuts, and the upstream revision used for verification.
Current interactive starting points:
Simplified Chinese reports are welcome. Canonical guides are written in English first so technical claims keep one reviewable source of truth.
All reactions