# Review and apply proposed changes
Generated: 2026-11-13T08:01:22.397Z
Source build: local
Canonical docs: https://teammately.ai/docs
---
id: workflow.improve.review-code-changes
title: Review and apply proposed changes
summary: Inspect a Lemon Code proposal against its Harness Draft and your intended behavioral change.
kind: task
product_area: improve
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-11
canonical: /docs/improve/review-code-changes
---
# Review and apply proposed changes
Inspect a Lemon Code proposal against its Harness Draft and your intended behavioral change.
## Prerequisites
A Harness conversation with a proposed file change and the context that motivated it.
## Steps
1. Read the proposed diff and rationale alongside the current Draft.
2. Check which files and behavior change, and which requirements the intervention needs to preserve.
3. Continue the conversation to refine the proposal. Apply only the changes you choose to accept into the Draft.
4. Validate the revised Draft as needed, then publish an exact Version. Select that saved Version for any debug run, and evaluate it against the intended Benchmark Version.
## Object and state changes
Applying changes edits the Draft. Publishing and benchmark execution create separate saved records; your engineers decide what to integrate into their application.
## Success criteria
The saved candidate contains the reviewed changes and its assessment addresses the original objective and protected behavior.
## Common failure modes
Applying a proposal without inspecting its file scope; treating a plausible explanation as measured improvement.
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Continue this workflow" %}
- [Develop a Harness with Lemon Code](/docs/concepts/lemon-code)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related troubleshooting pages
{% related-card-grid title="Resolve a problem" %}
- [Permissions troubleshooting](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions)
- [Benchmark run troubleshooting](/docs/troubleshooting/benchmark-runs)
{% /related-card-grid %}
---
id: concepts.lemon-code
title: Develop a Harness with Lemon Code
summary: Develop a Harness through a conversation connected to its draft, relevant context, and proposed file changes.
kind: concept
product_area: introduction
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-11
canonical: /docs/concepts/lemon-code
---
# Develop a Harness with Lemon Code
Work with Lemon Code on the code, context, and instructions around your model. The conversation stays connected to the Harness draft, so you can investigate behavior and develop changes where the implementation lives.
## Definition
Open a Harness under **Assets → Harnesses**. Describe the behavior you want to understand or change and bring the relevant context into the conversation. Lemon Code can examine the implementation and propose file changes.
Inspect the proposed diff, refine the approach through discussion, and decide which changes to apply to the draft. Publishing preserves an exact saved Harness Version for subsequent execution.
## Decision checkpoint
| Your question | Work with | Useful result |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Why does this Harness behave this way? | Lemon Code and the current source | An explanation connected to the implementation |
| How should this intervention be implemented? | Lemon Code and selected context | A proposed change for review |
| Does the saved candidate behave better? | Trialground | Recorded responses and rubric results |
| Which competing approach should we investigate? | Lemon Goal | Candidates tested against a benchmark objective |
## Develop a focused change
Explain the observed problem and the desired outcome. Attach the relevant policy, reference material, or benchmark context when it helps establish what the change should achieve.
Read the proposal as an implementation decision. Check the affected files, the intended behavior, and the constraints your team needs to preserve. Continue the conversation when the approach needs refinement.
## Take the candidate into evaluation
Apply the changes you choose and publish the draft as a saved Version. Use a debug run to try supplied inputs, then run the candidate against the intended Benchmark Version in Trialground.
Inspect gains and regressions against the same criteria that motivated the edit. Your engineers decide which ideas to integrate into the production system.
## Related workflows
{% related-card-grid title="Develop and assess a Harness" %}
- [Harnesses](/docs/assets/harnesses)
- [Run a Benchmark Evaluation](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-evaluation)
- [Start a Lemon Goal Session](/docs/improve/start-improvement-session)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Supply useful context" %}
- [Working with Lemon](/docs/concepts/lemon)
- [Reference Materials](/docs/agent-setup/reference-materials)
- [Rubrics and Policies](/docs/correctness-governance/policies-and-rubrics)
{% /related-card-grid %}
---
id: troubleshooting.permissions
title: Permissions troubleshooting
summary: Separate Project membership from Expert Contribution assignment and readiness when an expert has no tasks available.
kind: error
product_area: troubleshooting
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-06
canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/permissions
---
# Permissions troubleshooting
Use this when project role, reviewer assignment, or approval ownership prevents someone from completing the intended work.
## Symptom
A user can access Teammately but cannot open the expected Project, or an expert reports **no tasks available** after opening their Contribution link. These symptoms belong to different owning surfaces.
## Likely causes
- The user lacks the required Project permission through a direct grant, workspace group, or workspace role.
- The Contribution was requested for a different recipient.
- The Contribution exists but its next Task or Checkpoint is not ready.
- The current IP is blocked before Project membership is evaluated.
## Diagnostic checks
- Check direct grants in **Project Settings → Project Members**, the user's workspace-group membership, and the group's permission for the intended Project. Absence from the direct member list alone does not establish lack of access. Inspect workspace status and role in **Admin → Directory → Members** as well.
- Open the Contribution from the sender-side Expert Contributions workspace and verify its recipient and status.
- Check whether the expert has an executable Task or Checkpoint, not merely whether the Contribution exists.
- If **Access Restricted** is visible, resolve the IP allowlist first.
## Fix
- Add the correct individual workspace user under **Project Settings → Project Members** when direct Project membership is missing.
- If access is intended through a workspace group, confirm both the user's membership in that group and its permission for the intended Project.
- Correct the Contribution recipient through the owning Contribution workflow when the request went to the wrong person.
- Resolve lifecycle or readiness problems in Expert Contributions when access succeeds but no Task can be entered.
- Do not infer a permission from a role label or edit governed artifacts merely to make a control appear.
## Prevention
- Separate reviewer access from approval authority in review setup.
- Check assignments before launching a review session.
- Use a small pilot Contribution before assigning a larger specialist cohort.
- Keep project membership changes visible to review owners.
## Related task pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %}
- [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution)
- [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions)
- [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %}
- [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions)
- [Roles and Permissions](/docs/governance/roles-and-permissions)
- [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions)
{% /related-card-grid %}
---
id: troubleshooting.benchmark-runs
title: Benchmark run troubleshooting
summary: Diagnose a Run that cannot start, has no usable outputs, or produces results that cannot be compared safely.
kind: error
product_area: troubleshooting
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-06
canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/benchmark-runs
---
# Benchmark run troubleshooting
## Symptoms
- The evaluation surface has no Benchmark Version to run.
- Output import or mapping cannot identify a Case or output column.
- A Run is created but remains empty, incomplete, or failed.
- Results appear under the wrong candidate label or Harness Version.
- Two Runs show a score change but do not share a comparable snapshot boundary.
## Likely causes
- No immutable Snapshot exists for the intended evaluation set.
- Imported outputs are mapped to the wrong Case or column.
- The saved Harness Version or candidate metadata does not match the evaluated system.
- The Run is partial, failed, or being compared across different Benchmark Versions.
## Check the boundary before the failure
1. Confirm the URL and page identify the intended Project, Benchmark, and Benchmark Version.
2. Open the Version or Snapshot and verify it contains the expected Cases and evaluators. If it does not, repair coverage and create a new Snapshot; do not edit the historical Run.
3. For managed execution, confirm the saved Harness Version and recorded settings. For imported results, confirm that the external candidate context describes the system that produced the submitted responses.
4. If importing outputs, inspect the mapping preview. Match the Case identifier and candidate-output column deliberately; do not use a reference-output column as candidate behavior.
5. Open Run detail and inspect status, Case count, errors, metadata, and per-Case results before trusting aggregates.
## Fix
- **No runnable version:** finish Case selection and create a Snapshot first.
- **Missing imported outputs:** append only missing Cases to an uncompleted Trial using the exact manifest IDs. Correcting an accepted response or adding Cases after completion requires a new Trial in the external Run or a new Run. Preserve the original results.
- **Wrong Harness or metadata:** create a correctly configured Run. Do not relabel completed results to represent a different system.
- **Partial managed failure:** inspect and preserve the existing Run's recorded outcomes. For another independent execution under unchanged conditions, use **Run again**. **Run evaluation** reopens matching work, including failed work. Publish a new Harness Version when its code changes, or create a new Snapshot and Benchmark Version when Case content or criteria change.
- **Confusing comparison:** compare the Benchmark Version, Harness Version, candidate metadata, and evaluator boundary. Qualify or avoid the comparison when more than the intended variable changed.
## Prevention
Create a Snapshot before evaluation. For managed execution, save the exact Harness Version. For imported results, preserve external candidate context and preview the mapping on representative Cases. Before comparing, confirm that every difference between the two Runs is intentional and visible.
## Recovery check
Open the recovered Run and sample several Case results. Confirm the displayed input, candidate output, reference output where present, applicable Rubrics, and metadata all belong together. A completed status alone does not prove correct mapping.
{% example-demo title="Example: scores drop after output import" %}
A team imports a new candidate file and sees a sudden score collapse. Run detail shows that the column containing reference outputs was mapped as candidate output. The operator creates a new Run, maps the actual candidate column, preserves the mistaken Run as an identifiable failed attempt, and compares only the corrected Run with the prior candidate under the same Benchmark Version.
{% /example-demo %}
## Related task pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %}
- [Run a Benchmark Evaluation](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-evaluation)
- [Import External Evaluation Outputs](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/output-mapping)
- [Inspect Evaluation Results](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/inspect-results)
- [Evaluation Results](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/results)
- [Run Details and Metadata](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-details)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related reference" %}
- [Benchmarks and versions](/docs/concepts/benchmarks-and-versions)
- [Benchmark snapshots](/docs/coverage-engineering/benchmark-snapshots)
- [Outputs](/docs/object-model/outputs)
{% /related-card-grid %}