{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap","slug":"wfgy-problemmap","name":"WFGY ProblemMap","type":"repo","url":"https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY/blob/main/ProblemMap/README.md","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/wfgy-problemmap","categories":["rag-knowledge"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"free","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_0","uri":"capability://coding.rag.pipeline.failure.mode.identification","name":"rag pipeline failure mode identification","description":"Provides a structured checklist of 16 common failure modes across RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems, enabling engineers to systematically identify potential breaking points in their retrieval and generation pipeline.","intents":["I need to know what can go wrong in my RAG system before it hits production","I want a checklist to validate my RAG pipeline is production-ready","I'm debugging a RAG system and need to know what failure modes to investigate"],"best_for":["Backend engineers building RAG systems","ML engineers deploying LLM pipelines","DevOps teams responsible for LLM system reliability"],"limitations":["Requires manual review—no automated detection of failures","Does not provide diagnostic tools or scripts to detect failures at runtime","Checklist is static and requires human interpretation of applicability"],"requires":["Understanding of RAG architecture","Familiarity with LLM pipeline components","Manual testing and validation process"],"input_types":["Mental model of your RAG/LLM system"],"output_types":["Checklist items to validate","Debugging priorities"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_1","uri":"capability://coding.retrieval.quality.failure.detection.guidance","name":"retrieval quality failure detection guidance","description":"Identifies failure modes specific to the retrieval component of RAG systems, such as poor document ranking, semantic mismatch, or index corruption, helping engineers diagnose why relevant context isn't being retrieved.","intents":["My RAG system is returning irrelevant documents—what should I check?","I need to validate that my retrieval component is working correctly","I want to understand common retrieval failure patterns"],"best_for":["Engineers optimizing vector search and retrieval","Teams debugging low retrieval accuracy","RAG system architects"],"limitations":["Does not include metrics or thresholds for acceptable retrieval quality","No automated retrieval quality scoring or monitoring","Requires manual evaluation of retrieved documents"],"requires":["Access to retrieval logs or results","Understanding of your document corpus and embedding model"],"input_types":["Query examples","Retrieved document samples"],"output_types":["Retrieval failure mode checklist","Debugging hypotheses"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_2","uri":"capability://coding.llm.hallucination.and.generation.failure.detection.guidance","name":"llm hallucination and generation failure detection guidance","description":"Outlines failure modes in the generation phase where LLMs produce incorrect, fabricated, or incoherent outputs despite receiving relevant context, helping teams identify why their model outputs are unreliable.","intents":["My LLM is generating false information even with correct context—what's wrong?","I need to validate that my generation pipeline isn't producing hallucinations","I want to understand why my model outputs are inconsistent or inaccurate"],"best_for":["ML engineers tuning LLM behavior","Teams building fact-checking mechanisms","Product teams concerned with output quality"],"limitations":["Does not provide automated hallucination detection","No guidance on prompt engineering or model selection trade-offs","Requires manual evaluation of generated outputs"],"requires":["Sample LLM outputs to evaluate","Ground truth or reference data for comparison"],"input_types":["Generated text samples","Context provided to the model"],"output_types":["Hallucination failure mode checklist","Output quality assessment framework"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_3","uri":"capability://coding.latency.and.performance.failure.detection.guidance","name":"latency and performance failure detection guidance","description":"Identifies failure modes related to slow response times, timeouts, and resource bottlenecks in RAG/LLM pipelines, helping teams diagnose performance degradation before it impacts users.","intents":["My RAG system is too slow—where is the bottleneck?","I need to validate that my pipeline meets latency requirements","I want to understand common performance failure patterns in LLM systems"],"best_for":["DevOps and infrastructure engineers","Performance optimization teams","Product teams with SLA requirements"],"limitations":["Does not include performance benchmarking tools","No automated latency monitoring or alerting setup","Requires manual profiling and testing"],"requires":["Access to system logs and timing data","Understanding of your infrastructure and model serving setup"],"input_types":["Latency measurements","System resource metrics"],"output_types":["Performance failure mode checklist","Bottleneck identification framework"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_4","uri":"capability://coding.data.quality.and.preprocessing.failure.detection.guidance","name":"data quality and preprocessing failure detection guidance","description":"Highlights failure modes in data ingestion, cleaning, and preprocessing stages that can corrupt embeddings, introduce noise, or create misalignment between documents and queries in RAG systems.","intents":["My embeddings seem wrong—could it be a data quality issue?","I need to validate that my document preprocessing is correct","I want to understand how data quality impacts RAG performance"],"best_for":["Data engineers managing document pipelines","Teams building data validation frameworks","RAG system architects"],"limitations":["Does not provide data quality scoring or validation tools","No automated data profiling or anomaly detection","Requires manual inspection of processed data"],"requires":["Access to raw and processed data samples","Understanding of your data schema and preprocessing logic"],"input_types":["Raw documents","Processed/embedded documents"],"output_types":["Data quality failure mode checklist","Data validation priorities"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_5","uri":"capability://coding.model.and.embedding.failure.detection.guidance","name":"model and embedding failure detection guidance","description":"Identifies failure modes related to embedding model selection, version mismatches, and model degradation that can cause semantic drift or incompatibility between retrieval and generation components.","intents":["My embeddings don't match my queries—is it a model issue?","I need to validate that my embedding and LLM models are compatible","I want to understand how model selection impacts RAG reliability"],"best_for":["ML engineers selecting and managing models","Teams managing model versioning and updates","RAG system architects"],"limitations":["Does not provide model evaluation or benchmarking","No automated model compatibility checking","Requires manual testing of model combinations"],"requires":["Access to model metadata and versions","Understanding of embedding and LLM model characteristics"],"input_types":["Model specifications","Test queries and documents"],"output_types":["Model failure mode checklist","Model compatibility assessment"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_6","uri":"capability://coding.integration.and.api.failure.detection.guidance","name":"integration and api failure detection guidance","description":"Outlines failure modes in how RAG/LLM components integrate with external services, APIs, and databases, such as connection failures, rate limiting, or data format mismatches.","intents":["My RAG system is failing to connect to external services—what should I check?","I need to validate that my API integrations are robust","I want to understand common integration failure patterns"],"best_for":["Backend engineers managing integrations","DevOps teams responsible for system reliability","Teams building resilient RAG systems"],"limitations":["Does not provide integration testing frameworks","No automated failure injection or chaos testing","Requires manual integration testing"],"requires":["Access to integration logs and error messages","Understanding of external service contracts and APIs"],"input_types":["Integration test results","API error logs"],"output_types":["Integration failure mode checklist","Resilience improvement priorities"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_7","uri":"capability://coding.pre.deployment.production.readiness.validation","name":"pre-deployment production readiness validation","description":"Provides a comprehensive checklist to validate that a RAG/LLM system is ready for production deployment by systematically checking all 16 failure modes across the entire pipeline.","intents":["I'm about to deploy my RAG system—is it production-ready?","I need a final sanity check before launching to users","I want to ensure I haven't missed any critical failure modes"],"best_for":["Engineering teams preparing for production launch","Release managers and QA teams","Technical leads responsible for system reliability"],"limitations":["Checklist is manual—requires human review and sign-off","Does not automate validation or generate compliance reports","Effectiveness depends on team's understanding of each failure mode"],"requires":["Complete RAG/LLM system implementation","Access to staging or test environment","Team familiarity with all system components"],"input_types":["System architecture documentation","Test results and metrics"],"output_types":["Production readiness checklist","Go/no-go decision framework"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_wfgy-problemmap__cap_8","uri":"capability://coding.team.debugging.framework.standardization","name":"team debugging framework standardization","description":"Enables teams to adopt a shared, standardized mental model for debugging RAG/LLM failures by providing a common vocabulary and structured approach to failure investigation.","intents":["I want my team to have a consistent approach to debugging RAG issues","I need to standardize how we investigate production incidents","I want to reduce debugging time by using a proven framework"],"best_for":["Engineering teams building RAG systems","Organizations scaling LLM deployments","Teams with distributed or rotating on-call responsibilities"],"limitations":["Requires team training and adoption effort","Does not include runbooks or incident response automation","Effectiveness depends on team discipline in following the checklist"],"requires":["Team alignment on debugging methodology","Documentation and training materials"],"input_types":["Team feedback and incident reports"],"output_types":["Standardized debugging process","Incident investigation templates"],"categories":["coding","debugging"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":42,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Understanding of RAG architecture","Familiarity with LLM pipeline components","Manual testing and validation process","Access to retrieval logs or results","Understanding of your document corpus and embedding model","Sample LLM outputs to evaluate","Ground truth or reference data for comparison","Access to system logs and timing data","Understanding of your infrastructure and model serving setup","Access to raw and processed data samples"],"failure_modes":["Requires manual review—no automated detection of failures","Does not provide diagnostic tools or scripts to detect failures at runtime","Checklist is static and requires human interpretation of applicability","Does not include metrics or thresholds for acceptable retrieval quality","No automated retrieval quality scoring or monitoring","Requires manual evaluation of retrieved documents","Does not provide automated hallucination detection","No guidance on prompt engineering or model selection trade-offs","Requires manual evaluation of generated outputs","Does not include performance benchmarking tools","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.39999999999999997,"quality":0.77,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.9,"weights":{"adoption":0.3,"quality":0.2,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.3,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:34.117Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.539Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=wfgy-problemmap","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=wfgy-problemmap"}},"signature":"WtKMPGojlSkG5/gsBzCLcmSnUvP6zeDNmnjsMfZ0HZDGHkCR0tYSjX1tDf/YT+mZPrj2YIR8trb8tz1KpBfkBw==","signedAt":"2026-06-16T09:19:43.680Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/wfgy-problemmap","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/wfgy-problemmap","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=wfgy-problemmap","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}