Suggestion: add WFGY Problem Map (16-mode RAG debugging checklist)

[onestardao]

Hi, and thanks for curating this awesome-rag list.

I would like to suggest WFGY Problem Map as an additional entry, probably in the part where you list tools or references for RAG evaluation and debugging.

Short description

• Name: WFGY Problem Map
• Main entry: https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY/tree/main/ProblemMap/README.md
• Repo: https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY
• License: MIT

What it does

• Defines 16 canonical failure modes in RAG and LLM pipelines, indexed as No.1 to No.16.
• Each mode comes with a dedicated doc that explains typical symptoms, example incidents, and minimal code or infra changes to fix them.
• Ships with a TXT-based debugger where you paste a bug and get one primary Problem Map number plus suggestions for next steps.
• Works with any tech stack since it only relies on text, logs, and prompts.

Why it might fit this list

• Many entries show how to implement RAG, vector stores, and retrieval logic. WFGY is focused on post-deployment failure analysis.
• The 16-mode checklist can help teams who are new to RAG avoid guesswork when something feels wrong.
• Everything is MIT licensed with no hosted service behind it.

If this seems appropriate, I can open a small PR adding one line for WFGY.
If you feel it does not match the scope, that is also fine. Thanks again for the great list.

[onestardao]

Hi, just a brief follow-up on this suggestion.

Since opening this issue, the WFGY 2.0 “RAG 16 Problem Map” has been adopted or referenced by several RAG and LLM ecosystem projects, including:

• RAGFlow
• LlamaIndex
• ToolUniverse (Harvard MIMS Lab)
• Rankify (University of Innsbruck)
• Multimodal RAG Survey (QCRI LLM Lab)

In these cases, WFGY is not positioned as a competing framework, but as a structured diagnostic layer for debugging and evaluating RAG / LLM pipelines.

Given that this list curates tools and resources around LLM systems, I wanted to check again whether adding WFGY as a debugging / evaluation resource would make sense here.

If aligned with your scope, I’m happy to submit a minimal MVP PR — just a concise one-line entry formatted exactly to your style.

If it’s outside the intended focus, no worries at all. Just wanted to confirm before proceeding.

Thanks again for maintaining the list.