Log — Engineering Education Wiki

Append-only history. Entries start with ## [YYYY-MM-DD] <op> | <title>.

[2026-08-04] split | engineering-education-wiki created from _inbox (3 sources)

Spun out when awesome-system-design-resources completed a cluster two learning-roadmaps records had been holding since 2026-06-15 (coding-interview-university, ai-engineering-from-scratch). The coding-interview-university park record had stated the case plainly: no spoke owns CS fundamentals, data structures and algorithms, or CS education, and it had been declined by bit-manipulation-wiki (owns bitwise tricks, one sub-section), optimization-algorithms-wiki (metaheuristics) and research-wiki (knowledge management and formal methods, not study curricula).

The domain is not “lists of links.” It is how engineers learn and are assessed, which the three founding sources happen to document from the inside.

[2026-08-05] ingest | Prompt Engineering (NirDiamant)

Routed from the hub (runner-up: agentic-tooling-wiki). nirdiamant-prompt-engineering — 22 runnable Jupyter notebooks, one per prompting technique, 7,752★ / 1,006 forks, custom non-commercial licence, T3. The spoke’s first source that is not one of the founding three.

Three things it changed. It is a third pedagogical form — neither curated pointers nor build-from-scratch, but a lesson that is itself executable — so executable-curriculum was created alongside meta-curriculum, with the decay contrast (link rot vs dependency drift) as its point. It is a fourth data point on the founding exam/pedagogy correlation that lands on the predicted side but proves little, since a technique domain has no exam by construction — recorded in synthesis as weak support rather than confirmation. And it was the first hard boundary case: prompt engineering is owned by no spoke, so the “route the claim to the claim’s owner” rule had no target and the call was made on shape — course-shaped here, reference-shaped stays parked.

Verified against the GitHub API rather than the README: 22 notebooks confirmed, but they sit in one flat directory with no numbering, so the seven-tier sequence exists only in the README prose.

Entities: created nir-diamant (Person; entity-index returned no match ≥ threshold). Sibling repositories and the newsletter are recorded as prose, not noded — evidence is a README mention only. Budget: 1 of 8.

[2026-08-05] ingest | Top 50 LLM Interview Questions (Hoang)

Routed from the hub as a Google Drive PDF over Telegram. llm-interview-questions-hoang — Hao Hoang’s self-published 50-question LLM interview-prep doc (May 2025), T3. The PDF is held in raw/llm-interview-questions-hoang.pdf (a Drive link is not durable provenance); origin URL recorded on the page. Created hao-hoang (Person).

First non-repository source and first Article in the spoke, and its first on the AI/LLM- engineering interview (the founding three cover CS fundamentals + system design). It files here on the spoke’s own boundary rule: every question is about another spoke’s subject (sampling/attention → llm-inference, LoRA/QLoRA/PEFT → machine-learning, GPT-4/Gemini/foundation models → llm-providers, RAG/ CoT → research), but it makes no claim about any of them — it is an assessment artifact, so the form routes here and the substance cross-links.

Synthesis + interview-preparation updated: it is the founding thesis’s purest instance — not a curriculum shaped by an exam but the exam itself, printed, with no path around it. Removes the inference step the thesis previously needed. Also characterises what the LLM interview rewards today: recall of mechanism (the flashcard, opposite pole to ai-engineering-from-scratch‘s build-it). Does not touch the corpus’s outcome-data hole.

Entity note: entity-index returned a 0.80 fuzzy MATCH to chao-huang (research-wiki). Not the same person — Hao Hoang ≠ Chao Huang, a name-similarity false positive. Created a separate hao-hoang node and recorded the distinction on both the node and the index line, per the “read before merging” invariant.

Caveats on the page: self-published/promotional (LinkedIn lead-gen), introductory depth with some invented examples and dating content (GPT-4 vs GPT-3), cites nothing.

[2026-08-05] ingest | developer-roadmap (roadmap.sh)

Routed from the hub (Telegram, via an opensourceprojects.dev write-up; ingested against the repository itself rather than the write-up). developer-roadmap — kamranahmedse, 363.7k★/44.7k forks, T3 (maintainer’s own repo, commercial layer beside it). Paged kamran-ahmed.

Note for the record: this is one of the three artifacts the hub named when it spun this spoke out, and it had never been ingested. The spoke built its founding thesis without its own most-cited example.

Gap-relevance is unusually high — it is the exact falsifier the founding open question named, a curated-pointer curriculum with no assessment behind it. It arrived and the exam↔pedagogy correlation broke. The surviving claim is narrower and better: an exam shapes a curriculum’s scope (coding-interview-university dropping frontend and SQL), not its pedagogy. And developer-roadmap introduces a third organizing force the first four could not show — job title, one roadmap per role a company hires for, which is neither a syllabus nor a body of knowledge.

Open question 1 closed in the negative; a successor opened (“what decides pedagogy, if not the exam?”). The T1 floor is unmoved: this is the fifth T3 and the fifth source measuring intent to learn rather than learning. Third self-publisher-with-a-commercial-layer in a row, which is now a property of the corpus rather than a coincidence and is recorded on kamran-ahmed.

[2026-08-06] ingest | The Self-Directed Disposition: What Computing Students Say (research pass, T1 — the spoke’s first)

Sabin, Kumar, MacKellar, McCauley, VanDeGrift & Matsumoto, ITiCSE 2025 (ACM, doi:10.1145/3724363.3729114). Hunted via the hub Research Pass against ## Most wanted #4 — “first T1 (auto-edge: zero-T1 spoke)… needs peer-reviewed CS-education research.” This is it. ACM DL hard-blocked WebFetch (403); read via the firecrawl fallback plus the NSF public-access PDF.

Created self-directed-disposition-study (ScholarlyArticle, url-only, T1), mihaela-sabin (Person, lead author) and iticse (Event/BusinessEvent, the venue). Entity budget 2 of 8; five co-authors kept as plain mentions on the source page.

Why it matters beyond the tier. It is the first source here not published by someone with a product adjacent — the pattern kamran-ahmed made visible and that edge #1 had named as the reason the floor was not drifting up on its own. And it examines the disposition every artifact in this corpus assumes and none of them studies.

Two findings folded into a new synthesis thread. Students overwhelmingly equate self-direction with finding external material (148 of 380 coded behaviours, roughly 4× the next category, and more than planning + self-assessment + review combined) — which is precisely the work the meta-curriculum form does for them, opening a new open question the corpus cannot answer either way. And the largest self-reported obstacle to being self-directed is assignment structure (12 of 27), which puts a mechanism under a suspicion the spoke had no way to voice: a curriculum here is an assignment structure with the grade removed, and the most structured form (executable-curriculum) is the one the evidence would predict least self-direction from.

Limitations recorded rather than smoothed: qualitative self-report; responses not disaggregated by course, exercise type or any student characteristic (the authors’ own stated transferability limit); no record of the assignment each reflection targeted; US-centric; four of six authors taught 12 of the 18 sections sampled. It measures what students believe self-direction is — the stated research question — not whether those behaviours produce learning.

Growth edge #1 retired as CLOSED; replaced, ranked lower, by the institutional-curriculum half it also asked for (ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula, a university syllabus), which is still absent.

[2026-08-08] ingest | CS2023 — the ACM/IEEE-CS/AAAI curriculum guidelines

T1, via the research pass (hub ## Most wanted edge #5, the institutional-curriculum successor to this spoke’s first-T1 edge). cs2023 new.

The corpus’s first designed curriculum. Everything else here accreted: a repository, a star count, a maintainer’s taste. CS2023 is 17 knowledge areas argued to by a joint task force and endorsed by ACM (18 Jan 2024), IEEE-CS (22 Jan 2024) and AAAI (22 Feb 2024), revising CS2013 — Computational Science dropped, AI/security/PDC/ethics expanded, mathematics enlarged.

What it buys the wiki is a control. Reading CS2023’s areas against developer-roadmap and coding-interview-university makes the repositories’ popularity selection measurable rather than asserted: Society, Ethics and the Profession and Human-Computer Interaction are first-class areas in the guidelines and near-absent in the repositories, which sort toward interview-preparation. Written into synthesis as its own section.

It does not touch the spoke’s real complaint. CS2023 reports no learning outcomes either, so the corpus goes from four sources with no outcome data to five.

Limitation recorded on the page, not hidden: the 400-page final report returned compressed binary through every fetch route, so the CS Core / KA Core tiering and the hour counts are not held — the part of a curriculum that actually binds a department. Successor edge written for exactly that.

Floor: T1 1 → 2. No entity discovery — ACM, IEEE-CS and AAAI are bodies the source names but the spoke has no organization nodes and one ingest is not the moment to open three.

[2026-08-09] ingest | Two stale hub parks routed here — a reference and a clone

Both sources were parked in the hub _inbox before this spoke existed (2026-07-26 and 2026-06-28; spun out 2026-08-04) and nobody went back for them. Found by a scan of the holding pen at the curator’s request. Both T3.

prompt-engineering-guide — DAIR.AI, 77.4k★/8.5k forks, MIT, 1,589 commits, 13 languages, “3 million learners” as of January 2024. The registry note for this spoke had already named this park as its live boundary case, and the boundary rule decides it: a curriculum teaching a technique domain files here. New entity dair-ai.

adrianhajdin-uber-clone — JavaScript Mastery, 1.9k★/692 forks, no license stated. A ride-hailing app rebuilt across 15+ features with five vendor services. New entity javascript-mastery, new concept clone-project.

What changed in the thesis. Two things, and the first is the bigger one.

1. A controlled comparison. The prompt guide and nirdiamant-prompt-engineering share a subject, an absent exam and a genre, and made opposite pedagogical choices. Five sources of consistent-but-uncontrolled evidence now have one pair that holds the variables still, and it settles the negative half of the standing claim: the assessment regime does not pick the pedagogy. What does is still open.
2. “Build it” split in two. ai-engineering-from-scratch builds from scratch; the clone builds from services and implements nothing. The spoke’s curation-versus-construction vocabulary could not separate them, so clone-project now names the second and the rot ordering in synthesis has been extended — a clone decays faster than anything else here, on five vendors’ release cycles.

Recorded weaknesses. No license on the clone repo, which unsettles its own portfolio premise. Its 1.9k stars count the answer key rather than the YouTube course that does the teaching. The guide’s “3 million learners” is a marketing line unchanged since January 2024, and its per-model pages (GPT-4, Phi-2, Mixtral, Flan, OLMo) are a 2023–24 shelf. Still no outcome data anywhere in the corpus.

[2026-08-10] ingest | Kernel-Exploit-Dojo — the exam with no curriculum in between

Routed from the hub (Telegram). github.com/mito753/Kernel-Exploit-Dojo — 403★/62 forks, 696 commits, 100+ Linux kernel exploitation CTF challenges from 2020–2026, exploit code in C, no license stated. T3: a maintainer-owned repository describing its own material, no external review.

New pages: kernel-exploit-dojo (source), problem-archive (form), capture-the-flag (assessment regime), mito753 (thin Person).

Why it earned three concept pages. The spoke’s claim is that where an assessment regime exists it shapes scope. Every earlier case went through an author who wrote a plan. This one doesn’t: the scope is the exam — past competition problems kept with the organizers’ files, a working exploit and a writeup. The claim survives its most extreme test, and what it produces there is a fifth curriculum form, neither authored nor a set of pointers.

capture-the-flag is the corpus’s second assessment regime, and the contrast is what makes it worth a page: public scoring, per-problem results, and problems used once then released. Those properties are why a problem-archive can exist in security and cannot exist around the hiring interview — the form is rare here because the dominant exam keeps its problems, not because nobody wants one.

The find. Per-challenge difficulty grades and solve counts — the first quantitative signal in this corpus that is not a star count. It describes the item (how many teams solved it under time pressure), not the learner, and it is inherited from the competitions rather than measured here. The outcome hole is still open; this moves the corpus off zero on the axis beside it.

Recorded weaknesses. No license, on a repository that redistributes other people’s challenge material. Solve counts unsourced within the repo. Coverage follows what got competed on — the popularity selection cs2023 exposed, arriving by a different door. And a new decay mode: not link rot but relevance, as drilled bug classes get patched out of the kernel.

Scope note. Catalogued as a teaching artifact — structure, pedagogy, evidence. The repository’s own disclaimer (CTF and local lab only) is recorded on the page; no technique detail or operational guidance is held here.

[2026-08-10] ingest | CS2023 — the tiering and the hours (research pass)

Arrived through the hub Research Pass, against ## Most wanted #5 — the curriculum’s prescriptive half. Edge closed.

cs2023 refreshed in place. The page had recorded the CS Core / KA Core tiering and the per-area hour counts as a live gap on the finding that the 400-page report “could not be extracted.” That was wrong about the file: the report is published as fourteen section PDFs, and §3.1 Body of Knowledge and §1.3 Introduction to the Knowledge Model both extract cleanly with pypdf. Same failure mode the hub already has a standing rule about — a fetch failure on a PDF says nothing about the document.

Now held: the three-tier scheme in the report’s own words (CS Core binding on every curriculum, KA Core recommended depth, Non-core the renamed electives), the full 17-area table of knowledge units and hours, and the four skill levels attached per topic.

270 is the number that binds — total CS Core hours, roughly a year of contact time, and the whole of what CS2023 actually requires. The report refuses to total the KA Core column because those hours are not additive.

It also moves an existing claim. This page argued the repository corpus under-weights SEP and HCI. True, but the hours show the larger omission is mathematics — MSF at 55 CS Core hours, the biggest single requirement in the report, and the one developer-roadmap and coding-interview-university route around most completely.

2026-08-11 — ingest: ABET computing criteria (quality cycle)

abet-computing-criteria (T1, ABET Computing Accreditation Commission, 2026–2027 criteria). Coverage edge 7 closed. The spoke’s second T1 and its first binding document — cs2023 is advice three societies endorsed, this is the rule a US department loses its accreditation for breaking.

Numbers held: 30 semester credit hours of computing under the general criteria; for a computer science program, 40 SCH of CS and 15 SCH of mathematics and statistics with rigor “at least equivalent to introductory calculus”; five general student outcomes plus a sixth for CS; PhD-holding full-time faculty. The 2026–2027 text went through a 180-day public review opened 24 October 2025, comments to 15 June 2026.

The comparison that does not work, recorded before someone tries it. CS2023 counts topic hours (270 in the CS Core); ABET counts semester credit hours (40 in CS). The units do not convert and neither document maps onto the other. Written into the page, the synthesis and the successor edge, so a later cycle does not manufacture a ratio out of them.

What it does for the thesis. The standing claim is that an assessment regime shapes scope. Every earlier case was the hiring interview acting on an author’s judgment. ABET acts on the program, with a sanction, and produces exactly the scope the repositories drop: ethics and professional responsibility, teamwork, communication — mandatory attainments, absent from developer-roadmap, coding-interview-university and awesome-system-design-resources.

What it does not do. Edge 1’s successor asked whether any department conforms to the CS Core. ABET publishes criteria and an accredited-program list, not per-program findings, and its criteria nowhere require CS2023 coverage — so that question stays open and is now split in two on the page. No outcome data here either.