‹ Reports
The Dispatch

GitHub Repo Analysis: stanford-oval/storm

Technical Report on the STORM Software Project

Overview of STORM

STORM (Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question Asking) is a software initiative by the stanford-oval organization aimed at aiding the creation of Wikipedia-like articles using Large Language Models (LLMs). The project is structured to facilitate the pre-writing and writing stages of article generation, leveraging internet-based research for data gathering and LLMs for content creation. While still under development, STORM has shown utility in assisting experienced Wikipedia editors during the initial stages of article drafting.

Current State and Trajectory

The project is in an active development phase, with ongoing efforts to enhance its functionality and user experience. Recent activities suggest a focus on refining documentation, addressing API-related issues, and expanding feature sets to include more language inputs and integration with local LLM endpoints. The trajectory points towards making the system more robust and versatile for users, potentially increasing its adoption and utility.

Analysis of Open Issues

Notable Problems and Uncertainties

  • Issue #8: Dependency on You.com's search API poses a risk due to its credit card requirement. This issue is critical as it affects the project's accessibility and operational cost.
  • Issue #13: The rapid closure timeline might indicate procedural errors or miscommunications within the team.
  • Issue #5: The lack of clarity could stall progress on enhancing language support, which is vital for the project’s scalability.
  • Issue #3: Vague suggestions without clear action items could lead to misalignment with project goals.
  • Issue #2: Integrating local LLM endpoints and Docker support could significantly improve usability but needs careful planning and resource allocation.

Insights from Closed Issues

The prompt resolution of recent issues related to API keys and documentation errors (#12, #11, #10, #9) demonstrates an active maintenance effort and responsiveness to community feedback. This responsiveness is crucial for sustaining user engagement and trust.

Development Team Activity

Team Contributions

  • Yijia Shao (shaoyijia): As a pivotal figure, Yijia has been instrumental in both initial setups such as repository configuration and ongoing maintenance like README updates. Their ability to integrate contributions effectively is notable.
  • gavrielc: Focuses on documentation clarity, ensuring that setup instructions are accurate which is essential for new users.
  • Yucheng Jiang: Although less active, contributes to maintaining documentation standards.
  • r0cketdyne: Currently less visible in terms of direct contributions or commits, making their role unclear.

Collaboration Patterns

The interaction mainly revolves around documentation updates with Yijia Shao merging pull requests from gavrielc. This collaboration pattern underscores a team dynamic focused on keeping the project accessible and well-documented.

Pull Request Analysis

Open Pull Requests

  • PR #13: This pull request is critical due to its extensive refactoring of engine.py. The scheduled close date needs clarification to ensure that these significant changes are reviewed thoroughly.

Closed Pull Requests

  • PRs #11, #10, #9: These involved straightforward documentation fixes that enhance user setup experience. Their quick closure reflects well on the project's operational efficiency.

Source Code Structure and Quality

Key Components

  • src/engine.py: Central to the project's functionality but complex; could benefit from refactoring to enhance maintainability.
  • src/modules/utils.py: Essential for configuration management but needs better security practices around sensitive data like API keys.
  • src/scripts/run_prewriting.py and src/scripts/run_writing.py: These scripts are crucial for the operational aspects but should decouple processing logic from user interactions for better clarity.

Recommendations for Improvement

  1. Refactor src/engine.py to simplify complex functions.
  2. Implement more robust security measures for API key handling in src/modules/utils.py.
  3. Separate core logic from interaction in scripts to improve modularity and ease of testing.

Conclusion

STORM is progressing well with active issue resolution and codebase enhancements aimed at improving usability and functionality. The development team shows a good level of collaboration, particularly in documentation upkeep. Moving forward, addressing open issues decisively, especially those affecting core functionalities like API dependencies, will be crucial. Additionally, enhancing code quality through refactoring and better security practices will further solidify the foundation of this promising project.

Quantified Commit Activity Over 14 Days

Developer Avatar Branches PRs Commits Files Changes
Yijia Shao 1 0/0/0 2 224 119175
gavrielc 1 3/3/0 3 1 8
Yucheng-Jiang 1 0/0/0 1 1 2
hengittää (r0cketdyne) 0 1/0/0 0 0 0

PRs: created by that dev and opened/merged/closed-unmerged during the period

Executive Summary: STORM Project Analysis

Overview of STORM

STORM (Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question Asking) is a software initiative by the stanford-oval organization aimed at automating the creation of Wikipedia-like articles. Utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs), STORM facilitates the generation of article outlines based on internet research, subsequently using these outlines to produce detailed articles with citations. Although not yet producing publication-ready outputs, STORM has shown utility in assisting experienced Wikipedia editors during their article preparation phase.

Strategic Implications and Market Potential

STORM represents a strategic asset in the realm of automated content generation—a field with significant growth potential. By automating the labor-intensive research and drafting phases of article creation, STORM could serve educational platforms, content creators, and academic researchers, thereby tapping into a broad market. Enhancements that lead to publication-ready outputs could position STORM as a pivotal tool in knowledge management and dissemination.

Development Team Dynamics and Recent Activities

The development team, though small, is actively engaged in refining the project's usability and documentation. Recent activities suggest a strong focus on maintaining an accessible and well-documented codebase:

  • Yijia Shao is a key contributor, heavily involved in both initial setup and ongoing documentation efforts.
  • gavrielc supports the project primarily through documentation enhancements.
  • Yucheng Jiang also contributes to documentation but with less frequency.
  • r0cketdyne shows involvement through pull requests, although details on their contributions are limited.

Collaboration Patterns

The interaction between team members mainly revolves around improving documentation and setup processes. This collaboration ensures that new users and contributors face minimal barriers when interacting with the project.

Current Issues and Action Items

Several open issues require strategic decisions:

  • Dependency on Third-party APIs (#8): The reliance on external APIs like You.com poses risks related to cost and stability. Exploring alternative APIs or developing an in-house solution could mitigate these risks.
  • Feature Expansion (#2): Integrating local LLM endpoints and Docker support could significantly enhance usability and deployment flexibility, aligning with trends towards containerization and microservices.
  • Language Support (#5): Expanding language capabilities could broaden the user base and applicability of STORM across different linguistic demographics.

Recommendations for Strategic Advancement

  1. Risk Mitigation: Address the dependency on third-party APIs by diversifying the APIs used or investing in proprietary technology to reduce operational risk.
  2. Enhance Scalability: Prioritize the development of Docker support to facilitate easier deployment and scaling of STORM applications.
  3. Market Expansion: Extend language support to cater to non-English speaking markets, potentially increasing global usability and adoption.
  4. Team Optimization: Consider expanding the development team to accelerate feature development and improve support for a wider range of users.

Conclusion

STORM is positioned at a promising intersection of technology and content creation. With strategic enhancements and focused development efforts, it has the potential to become an indispensable tool in automated content generation. The current state of active maintenance and community engagement provides a solid foundation for future growth and innovation.

Quantified Commit Activity Over 14 Days

Developer Avatar Branches PRs Commits Files Changes
Yijia Shao 1 0/0/0 2 224 119175
gavrielc 1 3/3/0 3 1 8
Yucheng-Jiang 1 0/0/0 1 1 2
hengittää (r0cketdyne) 0 1/0/0 0 0 0

PRs: created by that dev and opened/merged/closed-unmerged during the period

Detailed Reports

Report On: Fetch issues



Analysis of Open Issues for the Software Project

Notable Problems and Uncertainties

Issue #8: Alternatives to You.com search API

  • Uncertainty: The need for an alternative to the You.com search API due to its credit card requirement is a significant concern. The issue creator, songkq, suggests several alternatives but it's unclear if they are viable replacements.
  • TODO: Integration of alternative search APIs into the project. Songkq has expressed willingness to open a PR for integration, which indicates ongoing development work.
  • Notable: This issue is related to a recently closed issue #12, which mentioned that the search API exceeded its maximum limit. This could be a recurring problem that might affect the stability and usability of the project.

Issue #13: Update engine.py

  • Notable Problem: Although this issue is about code improvement, it is marked as closing in 1 day, which is unusual since it was created 0 days ago. This could be an error or miscommunication regarding the issue's status.
  • TODO: Verification of the changes made to engine.py and ensuring that they are properly integrated and tested within the project.

Issue #5: More language input support

  • Anomaly: The issue lacks any description or comments, making it impossible to determine what exactly is being requested or reported. This lack of information can lead to confusion and delays in addressing the issue.
  • TODO: Clarification is needed from the issue creator, 0smboy, about what languages need support and in what capacity.

Issue #3: Commercial version improvement suggestion

  • Uncertainty: Ryan suggests that the writing process used in the project could help improve a commercial version, referencing an external site. However, there's no clear action item or specific feedback on what aspects of the commercial version could be improved.
  • TODO: Evaluate the suggestion and determine if it aligns with the project's goals and roadmap.

Issue #2: FEATURE REQUEST: Local LLM endpoint integration and Docker Container

  • Notable Problem: The request for integrating local LLM endpoints like Ollama and offering Docker container support indicates potential expansion and ease of deployment for users.
  • TODO: Assessing feasibility and planning for implementation of these features. Yijia Shao's response suggests that Docker release consideration is already underway.

General Context from Closed Issues

  • Recent closed issues such as #12, #11, #10, and #9 relate to API keys and documentation fixes, indicating active maintenance and user support.
  • Closed issues also include suggestions for improvements (#1) and feature requests (#2), showing that there is active engagement from the community.
  • The quick closure of issues like #11, #10, and #9 suggests a responsive maintainership addressing documentation errors promptly.

Summary

The open issues present a mix of code improvements (#13), feature requests (#2), third-party service dependencies (#8), and vague reports (#5). The most pressing concerns seem to revolve around third-party API limitations (#8) which also relate to a recently closed issue (#12). Additionally, there's active interest in expanding language support (#5) and integrating with local LLM endpoints (#2), which could significantly enhance the project's capabilities. It's important for maintainers to clarify uncertainties, especially regarding the ambiguous status of issue #13 and the lack of details in issue #5.

Report On: Fetch pull requests



Analysis of Pull Requests for the stanford-oval/storm Repository

Open Pull Requests

PR #13: Update engine.py

  • Status: Open
  • Created: 0 days ago
  • Closed: Scheduled to close in 1 day
  • Description: This PR aims to improve the code quality of engine.py by enhancing readability, organizing imports, adding docstrings, and renaming variables for clarity. The use of dataclasses is introduced to define argument structures, which could improve maintainability. Adherence to PEP 8 guidelines is also noted, which is important for Python codebases.
  • Potential Concerns:
    • The PR is open but scheduled to be closed soon. It's unclear if this means it will be merged or just closed without merging. If it's the latter, this could indicate a problem such as the changes not being accepted or needing further review.
    • The diff shows a significant reduction in lines of code (+5, -261). While this could indicate a substantial cleanup, it's important to ensure that no critical functionality was removed inadvertently.

Closed Pull Requests

PR #11: Update README.md — fixes You.com API key env variable

  • Status: Closed and Merged
  • Created/Closed: 1 day ago
  • Description: This PR corrected an environment variable name in the README.md from YOU_API_KEY to YDC_API_KEY, which aligns with the actual implementation.
  • Significance: This is a minor but important fix as it ensures that new users setting up the project use the correct environment variable.

PR #10: Update README.md — adds --do-research flag to example

  • Status: Closed and Merged
  • Created/Closed: 1 day ago
  • Description: The --do-research flag was added to an example in the README.md, as it's necessary for first-time runs.
  • Significance: This improves the documentation for new users and avoids potential confusion when setting up the project.

PR #9: Update README.md — fix secrets.toml syntax

  • Status: Closed and Merged
  • Created/Closed: 1 day ago
  • Description: This PR fixed the syntax in a TOML configuration example by adding quotes around string values.
  • Significance: Correcting syntax in documentation is crucial for preventing errors when users are configuring their setups.

Summary and Recommendations

The recently closed PRs (#11, #10, and #9) are all minor documentation fixes that have been merged promptly. These are good signs of an active repository where documentation is kept up-to-date, which is beneficial for user experience and project maintainability.

The open PR #13 requires careful attention. Given that it includes significant refactoring with a large number of lines removed, it's crucial to ensure that: 1. The refactoring does not introduce any regressions or remove necessary functionality. 2. The changes are thoroughly reviewed and tested before merging.

It's also worth noting that PR #13 is scheduled to be closed soon. If there is no intention to merge it, then the reasons should be clearly communicated to the contributor to ensure transparency and potentially guide them on how they can improve their contribution for acceptance.

Overall, there are no alarming issues with the pull requests. However, given the importance of PR #13's changes, I recommend prioritizing its review before its scheduled closure date.

Report On: Fetch Files For Assessment



Analysis of the Source Code Structure and Quality

General Overview

The source code provided is part of the STORM system, a sophisticated framework designed to automate the generation of Wikipedia-like articles using Large Language Models (LLMs). The system is structured to operate in two main stages: pre-writing and writing. The code is organized into modules that handle different aspects of these stages, from generating article outlines based on internet research to producing full articles and polishing them.

Detailed Analysis

  1. src/engine.py

    • Purpose: This file acts as the core of the STORM system, orchestrating the overall workflow from research to article generation.
    • Structure: The file defines a DeepSearchRunner class that manages various stages like research, outline generation, article generation, and polishing. It uses decorators for logging execution times and employs concurrent programming for efficiency.
    • Quality:
    • Pros:
    • Good use of Python features like dataclasses, decorators, and concurrency.
    • Clear separation of concerns within methods.
    • Extensive logging which is crucial for debugging and monitoring.
    • Cons:
    • High complexity with many responsibilities could make maintenance challenging.
    • Some methods are quite long and could benefit from further decomposition.

  2. src/modules/utils.py

    • Purpose: Provides utility functions and configurations for LLMs, crucial for customizing the behavior of the STORM system.
    • Structure: Includes definitions for configuring different LLMs, handling API keys, and various utility functions to assist with text processing and JSON handling.
    • Quality:
    • Pros:
    • Modular design makes it easy to update or change configurations.
    • Centralizes configurations and utilities which can be reused across different scripts.
    • Cons:
    • Potential risk if API keys are not handled securely (though this aspect is not fully visible from the snippet).

  3. src/scripts/run_prewriting.py

    • Purpose: Manages the pre-writing stage by collecting information based on internet searches and organizing it into an outline.
    • Structure: A script that sets up necessary configurations and runs the pre-writing process either in batch mode or interactively via console input.
    • Quality:
    • Pros:
    • Use of command-line arguments for flexibility in execution.
    • Progress bar (tqdm) enhances user experience during batch processing.
    • Cons:
    • Mixing of user interaction and processing logic could be separated for clarity and reusability.

  4. src/scripts/run_writing.py

    • Purpose: Handles the writing stage by using pre-generated outlines and collected information to produce full articles.
    • Structure: Similar to run_prewriting.py, it configures the environment and processes input to generate articles, with options to polish the output.
    • Quality:
    • Pros:
    • Consistent with run_prewriting.py in terms of command-line interface usage, making it easier for users familiar with one script to use the other.
    • Cons:
    • As with run_prewriting.py, could benefit from separating interaction logic from processing functions.

Recommendations

  • Consider refactoring long methods in src/engine.py into smaller, more manageable functions.
  • Enhance security practices around API key management in src/modules/utils.py.
  • Separate user interaction from core logic in scripts to improve modularity and testability.

Overall, the codebase demonstrates a robust implementation with good programming practices but could benefit from some refinements to reduce complexity and improve maintainability.

Report On: Fetch commits



Project Analysis: STORM

Project Overview

STORM, which stands for Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question Asking, is a software project developed by the stanford-oval organization. The project's primary goal is to assist in writing Wikipedia-like articles from scratch using Large Language Models (LLMs). It operates by conducting Internet-based research to collect references and generate an outline in the pre-writing stage, followed by using the outline and references to generate a full-length article with citations in the writing stage. The project is still in development, as it does not produce publication-ready articles but has been found useful by experienced Wikipedia editors during their pre-writing phase. The project's overall state appears to be active and evolving, with a trajectory towards improving automated knowledge curation and making the codebase more extensible.

Development Team Activity

The development team has been actively updating the project's documentation and addressing issues related to API keys and running examples. The team members and their recent activities are as follows:

Yijia Shao (shaoyijia)

  • Recent Commits: 4 commits with significant changes across numerous files.
  • Files Worked On: README.md, initial repository setup with various JSON and TXT files, scripts, evaluation tools, etc.
  • Collaborations: Merged pull requests from gavrielc.
  • Patterns & Conclusions: Yijia appears to be one of the main contributors, handling both codebase setup and documentation updates. They are responsive to contributions from others and ensure that the README is accurate for new users.

gavrielc

  • Recent Commits: 3 commits focused on README.md updates.
  • Files Worked On: README.md.
  • Collaborations: Submitted pull requests that were merged by Yijia Shao.
  • Patterns & Conclusions: gavrielc seems to be contributing to the project by ensuring that the documentation is clear and correct, particularly regarding API key configurations and running examples.

Yucheng Jiang

  • Recent Commits: 1 commit with minor changes.
  • Files Worked On: README.md.
  • Collaborations: None observed directly from the provided data.
  • Patterns & Conclusions: Yucheng's activity suggests a role in maintaining documentation quality, although their level of activity is less than Yijia Shao's.

r0cketdyne

  • Recent Commits: No direct commits observed in the provided data.
  • Files Worked On: Not applicable based on provided data.
  • Collaborations: Opened a pull request that has not yet been merged or closed.
  • Patterns & Conclusions: r0cketdyne's role or contributions cannot be determined from the available information.

Reverse Chronological List of Activities

## [shaoyijia] - 0 days ago
- Merged PR [#11](https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm/issues/11): Update README.md — fixes You.com API key env variable
- Merged PR [#10](https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm/issues/10): Update README.md — adds --do-research flag to example
- Merged PR [#9](https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm/issues/9): Update README.md — fix secrets.toml syntax

## [gavrielc] - 1 day ago
- PR [#11](https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm/issues/11): Update README.md — fixes You.com API key env variable
- PR [#10](https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm/issues/10): Update README.md — adds --do-research flag to example
- PR [#9](https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm/issues/9): Update README.md — fix secrets.toml syntax

## [Yucheng-Jiang] - 5 days ago
- Commit: Update README.md

## [shaoyijia] - 5 days ago
- Commit: Nit. (README.md)
- Initial commit with repository setup including JSON data, scripts, evaluation tools, etc.

## [r0cketdyne] - No direct commits observed within 14 days

In conclusion, the recent activities of the STORM development team indicate a focus on documentation and usability improvements. The team is relatively small but appears to work collaboratively on refining the project's presentation to potential users and contributors. The majority of recent work has been done by Yijia Shao with contributions from gavrielc and Yucheng Jiang. There is no recent activity from r0cketdyne based on the provided data.

Quantified Commit Activity Over 14 Days

Developer Avatar Branches PRs Commits Files Changes
Yijia Shao 1 0/0/0 2 224 119175
gavrielc 1 3/3/0 3 1 8
Yucheng-Jiang 1 0/0/0 1 1 2
hengittää (r0cketdyne) 0 1/0/0 0 0 0

PRs: created by that dev and opened/merged/closed-unmerged during the period