124 lines
7.4 KiB
TeX
124 lines
7.4 KiB
TeX
\chapter{AI Prompt Log}
|
|
\ChapterLabel{AIPromptLog}
|
|
\index{AI prompt log}
|
|
\index{AI assistance}
|
|
|
|
\section{Scope of Assistance}
|
|
This appendix records the \gls{ai} assistance used in preparing this document,
|
|
in the detail needed for a reviewer to see what was requested, what was
|
|
returned, and what the author changed. Assistance was used for interpreting the
|
|
assignment brief, drafting chapter text, and reviewing the document for internal
|
|
consistency. It was not used to generate command output, evidence, or any claim
|
|
about work that was not performed. No passwords, access tokens, private keys, or recovery codes were supplied.
|
|
The supplied coursework evidence includes author names, local usernames, host
|
|
names, and the local network details visible in the terminal captures.
|
|
Every decision recorded below was made by the authors; the assistant's role was
|
|
to propose and to check.
|
|
|
|
\section{Records}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Record 1 --- Document Interpretation and Restructuring}
|
|
\textbf{Date:} September 17, 2026.\\
|
|
\textbf{Tool and model:} Anthropic Claude (Opus 5).\\
|
|
\textbf{Task:} Determine what was expected by this assignment given its
|
|
instructions and the document template; then identify which parts of the template
|
|
belong in a submitted report and trim/modify unnecessary sections.\\
|
|
\textbf{Inputs:} The assignment brief and the supplied \LaTeX\ template sources.\\
|
|
\textbf{Output used:} Removal of the instructional example chapter and the
|
|
template-maintenance appendices; rewritten abstract, introduction, and document
|
|
history; corrected document metadata and authorship.\\
|
|
\textbf{Human review and corrections:} The assistant explained assignment expectations
|
|
and received clarification from the author according to class and lecture content.
|
|
The assistant provided a guideline on which template sections should be kept, removed,
|
|
or modified. The author identified sections that were erroneously retained and modified
|
|
the AI outputs heavily in the final iteration to match the scope of the assignment and lectures so far.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Record 2 --- Chapter Drafting}
|
|
\textbf{Date:} September 18, 2026.\\
|
|
\textbf{Tool and model:} Anthropic Claude (Opus 5).\\
|
|
\textbf{Task:} Review the configured Kanban board and draft \ChapterRef{KanbanSetup},
|
|
then draft \ChapterRef{Hosts} and \ChapterRef{Passwords} according to the author's plans.
|
|
Update the AI log once all changes are finalized.\\
|
|
\textbf{Inputs:} A screenshot of the board and its column settings; the
|
|
intended platform and naming convention, and the access model already decided
|
|
by the author. No passwords, nor their hints or rules, were shared with the assistant.\\
|
|
\textbf{Output used:} The Kanban chapter structure, its column policy, and card
|
|
inventory tables; the host inventory and its naming convention; the
|
|
split of accounts into generated and derived classes.\\
|
|
\textbf{Human review and corrections:} The author determined the column policy
|
|
and work-in-progress criteria, and rejected a proposal to create a GitHub
|
|
organization as premature while teams remain unformalized. Much of the assistant's
|
|
wording, structure, and ambitious ideas were rejected for overcomplication.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Record 3 --- Linux Commands}
|
|
\textbf{Date:} September 26, 2026.\\
|
|
\textbf{Tool and model:} Anthropic Claude (Opus 5).\\
|
|
\textbf{Task}: Draft a template for \ChapterRef{LinuxCommands} with appropriate formatting
|
|
for terminal inputs and outputs, and a structure for the problem set solutions. Revise
|
|
the entire document to reflect the new chapter and team formation.\\
|
|
\textbf{Inputs:} The document template and the Linux problem set.\\
|
|
\textbf{Output used:} A skeleton of the chapter with its sections, setup figure, and
|
|
the problem set headings for each question. Suggested edits to the metadata, abstract, and
|
|
introduction for Assignment~2 and the two-person team.\\
|
|
\textbf{Human review and corrections:} The authors refined the chapter structure to accommodate
|
|
rubric requirements and experimented with different figure formatting for terminal inputs and outputs.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Record 4 --- Guided Execution and Evidence Integration}
|
|
\textbf{Dates:} September 27, 2026.\\
|
|
\textbf{Tool:} OpenAI Codex.\\
|
|
\textbf{Task:} Guide Victor through the Linux setup and Q1--Q40, check supplied
|
|
results against the assignment, review the group chapter, and integrate evidence
|
|
and concise explanations while preserving Payton's existing work.\\
|
|
\textbf{Inputs:} Assignment and problem-set PDFs, the group PDF, supplied
|
|
chapter and supporting LaTeX files, Victor's screenshots, and his terminal
|
|
transcript.\\
|
|
\textbf{Output used:} Command guidance; evidence checks; revised environment
|
|
description; per-question explanations; labeled terminal screenshots; Q15/Q20
|
|
clarifications; explicit Q38 assumptions; history and version updates.\\
|
|
\textbf{Human contribution and review:} Victor executed the commands and supplied
|
|
the resulting screenshots and transcript. Payton supplied the existing setup
|
|
figures and problem-set answers. Codex edited the documentation and checked it
|
|
against the recorded results; it did not generate substitute execution output.
|
|
The team remains responsible for reviewing the additions and compiling the
|
|
combined Overleaf project.\\
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Record 5 --- AWS Deployment and Proposal Draft}
|
|
\textbf{Dates:} October 1--5, 2026.\\
|
|
\textbf{Tool:} OpenAI Codex.\\
|
|
\textbf{Task:} Guide Victor through AWS account access, EC2 provisioning,
|
|
class-based website development, Docker installation and deployment, then draft
|
|
his chapter from the actual sources and screenshots.\\
|
|
\textbf{Human contribution:} Victor operated AWS, created the application
|
|
files, executed local and remote commands, resolved the repository-key failure
|
|
with guidance, and provided the execution screenshots. Payton is responsible
|
|
for the separate TeX Live compiler exercise and chapter. Both authors will
|
|
review the tool-comparison proposal.\\
|
|
\textbf{Output used:} Command guidance, source code, saved evidence, deployment
|
|
chapter, draft GitHub Actions/Jenkins proposal, metadata, and history updates.
|
|
Codex copied additions into the student's supplied course repository location.\\
|
|
\textbf{Review boundary:} Proposal selection requires team review. Payton's
|
|
compiler work was not present in the inspected repository. Full compilation,
|
|
combined report review, repository publication, and Canvas submission are not
|
|
claimed by this record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Record 6 --- Inviscid Project Proposal}
|
|
\textbf{Date:} October 6, 2026.\\
|
|
\textbf{Tool:} OpenAI Codex.\\
|
|
\textbf{Task:} Brainstorm Inviscid, refine the metrics-tool comparison and
|
|
research question, and write the approved proposal into the course repository.\\
|
|
\textbf{Inputs:} The assignment outline, instructor clarification, Victor's
|
|
project preferences and corrections, current repository sources, and official
|
|
Prometheus and VictoriaMetrics documentation.\\
|
|
\textbf{Output used:} Project description, sample task, tentative tool choices,
|
|
research question, planned comparison, independent SWOT assessments, and
|
|
supporting document updates.\\
|
|
\textbf{Human decisions and corrections:} Victor approved the monitoring-service
|
|
concept, selected VictoriaMetrics instead of InfluxDB, approved the research
|
|
question, and requested independent SWOT assessments and candidate tools
|
|
explicitly marked undecided.\\
|
|
\textbf{Review boundary:} The monitoring prototype, tool comparison, and
|
|
pipeline remain proposed work. No performance results or completed monitoring
|
|
features are claimed. The combined report still requires final author review
|
|
and compilation before submission.
|