There are some grammar/style issues bugging me in the description:

javascript generators functions

JavaScript generator functions / JavaScript generators

You only gonna be passed an array with numbers

You will only be passed an array with numbers

If it gets called more then n times

then -> than

Other than that, this seems fine. I'd classify it as 8 kyu, but the average vote is disagreeing with me on that.

Used to not be that way. Things do improve.

Seeing the failure for the Initial code can still be useful.

@JohanWiltink

You can test both initial and example solutions with both example and submit test suites.

You can also do that with the Kata editor. In fact, it's done automatically when you hit publish with the exception of testing the initial solution. If either test fails, the publish will fail.

Did you go straight into the editor to change that, or did you make a fork and changed, tested, and approved that?

The latter option is much more foolproof. You can test both initial and example solutions with both example and submit test suites, and endlessly pore over the current description. That might have prevented a mistake like this. ( You can do that testing [ now ] even in the kata editor, I think, but I much like forks, because it makes it easier. It also doesn't throw away as much screen real estate. )

Definitely... forgot about that when changing the functions name!

I just did.

Example and Submit tests expect a different function name.

Attention to detail matters. This would have been easy to test!

Republished, please let me know when you find more issues :)

Always hit Publish after fixing any outstanding Issues, whoever thought of them ( preferably you, but unpublishing while fixing issues raised by other people is often a good idea, at least initially ). :]

Thanks guys, I will do that after fixing the mentioned issues. If you come up with something else there is to fix, please let me know, I will take care of it :)

Alex does have a point that the restriction to lists at least 3 long is arbitrary and artificial. I think you might rework that aspect some. Empty lists are a no-go, but any non-empty list could be a valid input. Just be clear what you are testing with.

+1 on "please republish."

I think you should republish. I don't know if there are any issues with this kata such as being novel or being a duplicate, but if there aren't any of those issues, you might be able to get your satisfaction rating up. Especially if you are following JohanWiltink's (and others) suggestions. You might find your satisfaction rating goes up quickly.

Nice!

I can't see the test of course, because I can't submit and I'm not willing to forfeit just in case you decide to republish sometime, but I'll take your word for it. :P

intentionally unconventional

Test added!