I build defect-detection tools and publish the catch rate rather than assert it. Every figure below sits in a public MIT repository beside the script that produced it.
| What it catches | Measured | Repository |
|---|---|---|
| Side effects that execute twice | 40 concurrent OS processes racing one refund — 20/20 deterministic detections of two reclaim-path defects that a statistical race test passed | once-guard |
| Prompt injection, tested against itself | 26/26 on the corpus written for it — 5/42 on the corpus written to break it | llm-guardrails |
| Airflow DAGs, parsed instead of imported | 12/12 planted defects caught, 0 false positives on the clean DAG | dag-guard |
| Loads that exit zero and are still wrong | a sabotaged batch fails 12 contract tests; the clean batch passes with 0 — catches a load that overstates revenue by 1,139% | warehouse-quality-gate |
The 5/42 is the number I lead with. A filter tested only against the corpus written for it has not been tested. Both corpora are published, so the bad number is reproducible in one command rather than quoted.
Documentation is a review surface too. I numbered all 158 behavioural claims in one README and tried to produce the command proving each: 7 were wrong, 18 had nothing behind them. I deleted the latency figures I could not reproduce and published the correction rather than dropping them quietly.
Written communication only — no calls required at any stage.
Korean · English · Chinese. RWS TrainAI language assessment: Korean 35/35, English 34/35, both Proficient User.
Gyeonggi-do, South Korea · jigonyoo.com · dev.to/jigonyoo