Upload README.md with huggingface_hub

README.md

@@ -4,23 +4,72 @@ task_categories:
 - text-generation
 language:
 - en
+pretty_name: LeetCode Code-Gen (JavaScript)
+size_categories:
+- n<1K
 tags:
 - code
 - javascript
 - leetcode
 - algorithms
+- code-generation
+- competitive-programming
+- instruction-tuning
+- sft
 ---
 
 # LeetCode Code-Gen Dataset — JavaScript
 
-Problem statement + examples + required algorithm/technique -> JavaScript solution.
-631 rows. Sourced from doocs/leetcode.
+631 rows. Given a problem statement, its input/output examples, and a
+required algorithm/technique, generate a correct JavaScript solution.
 
-**Not execution-verified** — no compiler/runtime harness exists yet for this language. Extracted directly from doocs/leetcode community solutions; treat correctness as likely, not guaranteed.
+Part of a 4-language collection built from the same source: see the sibling
+[Python](https://huggingface.co/datasets/AmareshHebbar/leetcode-codegen-python),
+[Java](https://huggingface.co/datasets/AmareshHebbar/leetcode-codegen-java),
+[C++](https://huggingface.co/datasets/AmareshHebbar/leetcode-codegen-cpp), and
+[JavaScript](https://huggingface.co/datasets/AmareshHebbar/leetcode-codegen-javascript)
+datasets.
+
+## Verification
+
+**Not execution-verified.** There is currently no compiler/runtime harness for this language in the build pipeline (only Python has one). Rows are extracted directly from named solution approaches in [doocs/leetcode](https://github.com/doocs/leetcode), a well-maintained community solutions repo, so correctness is likely but not guaranteed. Treat this the way you'd treat any unverified scraped code dataset.
+
+## Source
+
+Extracted from [doocs/leetcode](https://github.com/doocs/leetcode), which
+documents multiple named solution approaches per problem (e.g. "Dynamic
+Programming", "Two Pointers", "Divide and Conquer") -- this is what makes
+per-row algorithm labeling possible, since the same problem can appear
+multiple times with a different technique and different code each time.
 
 ## Fields
-- `slug`: LeetCode problem slug
-- `solution_id`: unique id, problem + approach index + language
-- `primary_algorithm`: normalized algorithm/technique label
-- `verified`: true/false for Python (execution-checked), null for other languages
-- `messages`: chat-format (system/user/assistant), ready for SFT
+
+| field | description |
+|---|---|
+| `slug` | LeetCode problem slug |
+| `solution_id` | unique id: problem + approach index + language |
+| `primary_algorithm` | normalized algorithm/technique label |
+| `verified` | `true`/`false` for Python (execution-checked), `null` for other languages |
+| `messages` | chat-format (system/user/assistant), ready for SFT |
+
+## Example row
+
+```json
+{
+  "slug": "house-robber",
+  "primary_algorithm": "Dynamic Programming",
+  "messages": [
+    {"role": "system", "content": "You are a competitive programming assistant..."},
+    {"role": "user", "content": "### Problem\n...\n### Algorithm\nDynamic Programming"},
+    {"role": "assistant", "content": "```javascript\n...\n```"}
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+## Known gaps
+
+- SQL/database problems excluded (wrong problem type for a code-execution harness)
+- Design/class problems (LRU Cache, iterators) excluded -- they need a
+  sequence of method calls to test, not a single input -> output check
+- Some `Brute Force` labels are a fallback where the source didn't name a
+  specific technique for that approach