@mrciphersmith/keryx 0.3.1 → 0.3.3

package/src/gdskills/bundled/stacks/docker-k8s-terraform/governance/eval.json

@@ -0,0 +1,865 @@
+{
+  "schemaVersion": "1.0.0",
+  "reports": [
+    {
+      "schemaVersion": "1.0.0",
+      "skillId": "docker-k8s-terraform/docker-k8s-terraform-review",
+      "strictness": "high",
+      "trials": 10,
+      "triggerAccuracy": {
+        "truePositive": 6,
+        "falsePositive": 1,
+        "positives": 6,
+        "negatives": 6
+      },
+      "evidence": "authored",
+      "scenarios": [
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-1",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Review this Dockerfile for security issues before we merge",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-2",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Check this Kubernetes deployment manifest for a missing securityContext",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-3",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Review this Terraform change for hardcoded secrets",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-4",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Does this Dockerfile end up running the container as root",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-5",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Review this Helm chart's NetworkPolicy template",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-6",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Check this docker-compose file for a credential in plaintext",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-1",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Review this Go diff for goroutine leaks",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-2",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Run a full dependency vulnerability scan on this repo",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-3",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Deploy this Dockerfile image to production",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 0,
+          "passRate": 0,
+          "passAtK": 0,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-4",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Review this GitHub Actions workflow YAML for caching issues",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-5",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Fix the failing terraform plan for me",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-6",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Review this Python code for SQL injection",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "dockerfile-root-user",
+          "kind": "behavior",
+          "prompt": "Review this Dockerfile diff: an existing image previously ran as a non-root user, but the change adds `USER root` right before the final CMD instruction. What's wrong here?",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 10,
+          "passes": 10,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "judge",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "trialRecords": [
+            {
+              "output": "This is the root-container finding from Step 2 of the review, and it's the highest-severity pattern this skill checks for.\n\n**What's wrong:** the diff reintroduces `USER root` immediately before the final `CMD`, reverting an image that previously ran as non-root back to running as root for the container's actual runtime. The `USER` instruction is sticky — it sets the user for every subsequent `RUN`/`CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`, so placing it just before `CMD` means the process the container launches at runtime runs as root.\n\n```\nDockerfile:<line of USER root> -- USER root added back before CMD,\n  reverting the image to run as root.\n  Risk: any process compromise inside the running container now executes\n  with root privileges inside the container instead of a scoped user,\n  widening the blast radius of a defect or exploit in the app.\n  Fix direction: restore a non-root USER (the one the image used before,\n  e.g. USER app created earlier with RUN useradd) before CMD/ENTRYPOINT --\n  do not apply this edit as part of the review.\n```\n\n**Notes specific to this diff:**\n\n- It is **diff-introduced**, not pre-existing — the file previously had the correct non-root posture, so this is a regression the change itself causes. Report it as introduced, not as a pre-existing issue in a touched file.\n- Check *why* the `USER root` was added. If it's paired with a `RUN` that needs root (e.g. installing a package, writing to a root-owned path), the correct fix direction is to do that privileged work in a dropped-root `RUN` step and then return to the non-root user before `CMD` — not to leave the container running as root for its whole life.\n- Per the skill's rules, I report the finding and fix direction only; I do not edit the Dockerfile. The `USER root` change should be blocked at review, not silently corrected.\n\n**Red-flag to watch for in the author's reply:** \"it's only root inside the container, that's contained.\" It is not equivalent to being harmless — running as root is what turns a single app-level compromise into a container-wide one, and the previous non-root posture existed precisely to prevent that.",
+              "outputSha256": "41b9d89cc9a06dc398395e10c5f83779cc9abfad97f208084847044383d86d0d",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff adding `USER root` before CMD as the problem (criterion 1), states the consequence that a process compromise now executes with root privileges instead of a scoped user (criterion 2), and gives a fix direction to restore a non-root USER before CMD/ENTRYPOINT while explicitly stating it does not edit the Dockerfile (criterion 3). No fail criteria: it does not excuse root or claim an edit was made."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The change is a security regression: the image previously ran as a non-root user, and this diff reverts it to root right before the final `CMD`. After `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT` starts the container process, that process and anything it spawns run as UID 0.\n\nWhy it matters:\n\n- **Privilege escalation surface.** A compromise of the application process — a remote code execution bug, a dependency hijack, a command injection — now lands the attacker as root inside the container rather than as a scoped unprivileged user. That removes the first containment layer.\n- **Defeats downstream controls.** Container runtimes, admission controllers, and Pod Security Admission policies that enforce `runAsNonRoot` will either reject this image or silently have their intent subverted, depending on how the manifest is written.\n- **Wider blast radius if the container escapes or has volume mounts.** A root process writing to mounted volumes or shared sockets does so with full ownership privileges, so any host or sidecar path that trusts file ownership is now reachable by the container's process.\n\nFix direction (not applying it — this is a read-only review):\n\n- Restore a non-root `USER` immediately before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`. Typically that means ensuring the user exists earlier in the image (`RUN useradd --create-home --shell /usr/sbin/nologin app`) and then `USER app` before the final `CMD`.\n- If the reason for the `USER root` addition was a build-time or startup requirement (binding to a privileged port, installing a package, chowning a directory), move that requirement earlier in the build or handle it via `RUN --mount` / `COPY --chown` / `setcap` so the runtime process does not need root.\n- If the manifest already sets `securityContext.runAsNonRoot: true` and a non-root `runAsUser`, note that this Dockerfile change contradicts it — one of the two needs to be corrected, and the Dockerfile is the better place.\n\nFinding format:\n\n```\nDockerfile:<line> -- `USER root` added immediately before the final CMD/ENTRYPOINT, reverting the image from its previous non-root runtime user.\n  Risk category: root container.\n  Impact: the container's main process and any children run as UID 0, removing the privilege-containment boundary the previous USER line provided.\n  Fix direction: restore a non-root USER (with the user created earlier via RUN useradd) before CMD; if root was needed for a build/startup step, move that step earlier in the build or use --chown/--mount/setcap instead of a runtime USER root.\n```\n\nAlso worth flagging in the same review, since it is adjacent to this change: check whether the diff also touched the base `FROM` line or any `ARG`/`ENV`/`COPY` that carries a secret, because a `USER root` reversion often travels with other \"make it work\" build tweaks that reintroduce the same class of issue. And distinguish this diff-introduced finding from any pre-existing issues in the same file — the `USER root` addition is clearly new in this diff, so it should be reported as introduced, not as pre-existing.",
+              "outputSha256": "250131c992696f26aeeef7e1c1e7e6ba5d07bcecec3581824f8ff1fc6d2cc6c4",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff adds `USER root` before final CMD as the problem (\"this diff reverts it to root right before the final `CMD`\"). Consequence stated: process and children run as UID 0, so RCE/dependency hijack lands attacker as root \"rather than as a scoped unprivileged user.\" Fix direction given as read-only finding: \"Restore a non-root `USER`... `USER app` before the final `CMD`,\" explicitly \"not applying it.\" No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "This is the `USER root` regression from the Step 2 Dockerfile checklist — a diff that adds root back onto a previously non-root image.\n\n```\nDockerfile -- USER root added immediately before CMD, reverting the image\n  from running as a non-root user to running as root.\n```\n\n**What's wrong**\n\nThe image had already been hardened to run as a non-root user. This diff removes that protection at the one line that matters most: the final `USER` before `CMD` governs the identity the container process actually runs as at runtime. So the change means any process compromise inside the container — a bug in the app, a dependency pulled in at build time, a code-execution flaw — now runs with root privileges inside the container rather than a scoped, unprivileged user.\n\nThat is the risk category `rules/security.mdc`'s non-root-by-default rule exists to prevent. Concretely:\n\n- With root in the container, an escape or a misconfigured volume mount (`-v /:/host`) turns \"compromised app\" into \"compromised host\" far more easily — root in the container maps to root on the host for many escapes and for any content the container writes into a bind-mounted host path.\n- Any files the process writes into mounted volumes end up root-owned on the host, which then breaks the non-root user's ability to write there later even after this line is reverted — a lingering side effect.\n- Dropping root privileges is one of the cheapest, highest-value container hardening steps; there is no functional reason the final instruction needs root unless the entrypoint genuinely requires privileged operations, in which case that requirement should be made explicit and reviewed on its own, not added silently right before `CMD`.\n\n**Why the \"it's just for local dev\" rationalization fails**\n\nIf this Dockerfile is in a shared branch, it is shipping config, not a private override. \"It's only for local\" is exactly the assumption the review is supposed to surface explicitly rather than let pass — if root really is needed for a dev-only path, that belongs in a separate dev override (e.g. a Compose override file), never in the base image every environment builds from.\n\n**Fix direction (do not apply — this review is read-only)**\n\nRestore a non-root `USER` before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`. Typically the image already has the user from an earlier `RUN useradd`/`adduser` step — reuse it, e.g.:\n\n```\nRUN useradd --create-home --uid 10001 app\n...\nUSER app\nCMD [\"...\"]\n```\n\nIf the change was added because the entrypoint actually needs to do one privileged setup step, the right fix direction is not `USER root` permanently but either dropping privileges after setup (e.g. `gosu`/`su-exec` in the entrypoint) or moving the privileged step to build/config time — flag which one applies once the actual requirement is known.\n\n**One confirmation before finalizing**\n\nCheck whether the build previously relied on a `USER` set earlier in the file that this diff does not remove, or whether it set `USER` once and this change intentionally overrides it. Either way the net runtime identity is now root and that is the finding; but distinguishing \"duplicate `USER` line added\" from \"earlier `USER` removed\" affects the exact fix.",
+              "outputSha256": "7950182589ef305d74e33bcfb03e8575154d21faab75c20fc7ca92362076d7b3",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff adds `USER root` before CMD reverting a non-root image (criterion 1). States consequence: process compromise now runs with root privileges rather than a scoped unprivileged user (criterion 2). Gives fix direction: restore non-root USER, e.g. `USER app` after useradd, explicitly marked 'do not apply — this review is read-only' (criterion 3). No fail criteria: it rejects the 'just for local dev' rationalization and applies no edit."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The change reverts the image to running as root, and it does so at the worst possible point — right before the final `CMD` — so every container started from this image runs its main process as root instead of the scoped non-root user the image was previously built around.\n\nWhat's wrong, specifically:\n\n- **Root by default at runtime.** Adding `USER root` immediately before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT` means the entrypoint process itself — and everything it spawns — executes with UID 0 inside the container. That is the exact non-root-by-default rule in `rules/security.mdc` being violated by the diff, not a pre-existing condition. Any compromise of the app process (a dependency RCE, a shell injection, a deserialization bug) now lands in a root context rather than under a scoped user.\n- **A regression, not a new-file nit.** Because the image previously ran as non-root, this diff actively regresses an existing control. That makes it more serious than if the Dockerfile had always been root: something that was hardened is being un-hardened, and it needs an explicit justification to merge.\n- **The `USER` placement makes it look intentional and final.** Sitting right before `CMD`, the `USER root` reads as a deliberate runtime decision rather than a leftover. If the intent was to run a build/setup step as root and then drop back, the correct pattern is to set `USER root` only for that `RUN` step (or use `--mount=type=secret` for build-time secrets) and then restore a non-root `USER` afterwards — never leave root as the last `USER` in the file.\n- **It also weakens the rest of the image's hardening.** Even if the container has a read-only root FS, dropped capabilities, or a Kubernetes `securityContext`, running as root defeats a defense-in-depth layer that was already paid for. If `runAsNonRoot: true` is set in a Kubernetes `securityContext`, this change can even cause pods to fail admission or crash on startup because the image itself now demands root — a silent deployment break, not just a security smell.\n\nThe fix direction (not to be applied here — this review is read-only): restore a non-root `USER` before the final `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`, e.g. the `app` user created earlier with `RUN useradd`, or remove the added `USER root` entirely if it isn't needed for a specific preceding step. If a root-only step genuinely must run, scope `USER root` to that single step only and switch back to the non-root user immediately after it.\n\nOne thing worth confirming before merging: check whether the diff also touched anything else that depends on this — a Kubernetes/Helm `securityContext` with `runAsNonRoot: true` in the same change would mean this isn't just a security regression but also a config conflict that will fail at deploy time.",
+              "outputSha256": "257b7a03fa3db80921e3df48bc285bdf10c95fe6b6d407fdfe855581ab8a9c05",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff adding `USER root` before CMD as the problem (\"reverts the image to running as root... right before the final CMD\"). States consequence: entrypoint and spawned processes run as UID 0, so a dependency RCE/shell injection lands in root context rather than scoped user. Fix direction given as read-only finding: restore non-root USER (e.g. `app` user from `RUN useradd`) or remove `USER root`; explicitly says not to be applied. No fail criteria met."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The change reverts the image to running as root at container start, which is exactly the kind of regression this review is meant to catch.\n\n**Finding**\n\n```\nDockerfile:14 -- USER root added back before CMD, reverting the image to\n  run as root.\n```\n\n**Why it matters**\n\n- The image previously ran as a non-root user. Adding `USER root` immediately before `CMD` means the container's main process — and every process it spawns — runs with full root privileges for the entire container lifetime.\n- Any compromise of the application process (a remote-code-execution bug, a dependency's postinstall script, a shell escape) inherits root inside the container. That widens the blast radius: more capability to write to mounted volumes, to abuse kernel interfaces, and to attempt container escape, versus a scoped non-root user with only the permissions the app actually needs.\n- It also silently breaks the non-root-by-default rule in `rules/security.mdc`. If any downstream Kubernetes manifest relies on `runAsNonRoot: true` in its `securityContext`, the kubelet will now reject the pod at admission (the image's effective UID is 0), so this can be both a security regression and a deployment-breaking change.\n- Since this is a regression (the image used to be non-root), it fails the \"distinguish diff-introduced from pre-existing\" check cleanly: the diff introduces it.\n\n**Fix direction (not applied — this review is read-only)**\n\n- Restore a non-root `USER` before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`, e.g. ensure the user is created earlier with something like `RUN useradd --create-home --uid 10001 app` and then `USER app`.\n- Confirm the final effective user is not just non-root by name but non-zero by UID, since `USER root` and `USER 0` are equivalent and Kubernetes `runAsNonRoot` checks the numeric UID.\n- If the root switch was added to work around a file-permission problem (e.g. writing to a mounted path), fix the ownership of that path at build or init time rather than widening the runtime user.\n\nRequesting `USER root` \"just for local dev\" does not clear this: a Dockerfile on a shared branch is reviewed as shipping config, so the finding stands unless the root user is explicitly and narrowly justified for that image.",
+              "outputSha256": "bb514aa42bc884d968e3f200cf8f01592847cc78044718376ba0a5a49ff82de5",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff problem: 'USER root added back before CMD, reverting the image to run as root' (crit 1). Consequence stated: compromise of app process 'inherits root inside the container', widening blast radius vs scoped non-root user (crit 2). Fix direction given as read-only finding: 'Restore a non-root USER before CMD/ENTRYPOINT... USER app', explicitly 'not applied — this review is read-only' (crit 3). No fail criteria: it rejects the 'just for local dev' excuse and applies no edit."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The change reverts the image to running as root, undoing the non-root posture that was previously established.\n\n**Finding**\n\n`Dockerfile:<line of added USER root>` — `USER root` added immediately before `CMD`, reverting the image to run as root.\n\n**Why it matters**\n\nA previously non-root image that now runs as root means any process compromise inside the running container executes with root privileges rather than a scoped, unprivileged user's privileges. Everything downstream of that — filesystem writes, process signals, any host-/kernel-facing surface reachable from the container — is reachable with full root authority instead of the narrow set the original user had. This directly violates the non-root-by-default expectation for production-bound images.\n\nIt's also easy to miss the *removal of the prior protection*: reviewers often see `USER root` and read it as an explicit, intentional declaration rather than as the deletion of an earlier `USER app`/`USER node`/etc. The diff doesn't just fail to add hardening — it unwinds hardening that already existed, so the net risk is higher than a Dockerfile that never had a non-root user at all (there, at least, the behavior is the long-standing baseline; here a working control is being regressed).\n\n**Fix direction**\n\nRestore a non-root user before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`:\n\n```dockerfile\nRUN useradd --create-home app   # if not already created earlier in the file\nUSER app\nCMD [...]\n```\n\nIf the intermediate `USER root` step was genuinely needed (e.g. to `chown`/`chmod` a directory the app user must own), keep it scoped and then drop back:\n\n```dockerfile\nRUN chown -R app:app /app-data\nUSER app\n```\n\n— but the file must end with a non-root `USER` before the final `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`, never with `USER root`.\n\n**Also worth confirming**\n\n- Whether the earlier non-root `USER` line was left in place further up the file. If it was, the added `USER root` is the last `USER` instruction and therefore wins — the earlier one is dead config.\n- Whether the base image is *also* pinned by digest. If this diff touched the `FROM` line too (e.g. moved to a mutable tag), that's a second, separate finding — a reproducibility regression — and should be reported distinctly from the root-user regression.\n\nI have not edited the file; this is a report with fix direction only.",
+              "outputSha256": "ff36c9ae11e3c0d220694c9c271f55316ba1c54af35949584de3df99697d0859",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the added `USER root` before CMD as the problem (Finding section), states the consequence that a process compromise runs with root privileges rather than a scoped unprivileged user, and gives a concrete fix direction (restore `USER app` before CMD/ENTRYPOINT, with example), explicitly noting 'I have not edited the file; this is a report with fix direction only.' No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The change is a security regression: it reverts the image to running as root at runtime.\n\n**What's wrong**\n\n- The base image already established a non-root user (via a `USER` instruction earlier in the file, or the base image's own default). Any process that had been running scoped to that unprivileged user now runs as UID 0.\n- Adding `USER root` immediately before the final `CMD` is the most impactful possible placement: the final `USER` is what the container's entrypoint/CMD actually executes under. Everything built downstream of that line — the running application itself — is now root.\n- Concretely, a compromise of the application (a dependency RCE, a path-traversal bug, a shell injection) now lands an attacker inside the container with root privileges instead of a scoped user. That widens what a container escape or a mounted-volume write can reach, and it defeats any `runAsNonRoot` policy a Kubernetes manifest might otherwise be enforcing.\n\n**Fix direction (not applied — this review is read-only)**\n\n- Restore the non-root user before `CMD`, e.g. remove the added `USER root` line, or replace it with the user the image previously used: `USER app` (assuming a user was created earlier with something like `RUN useradd ...` / `RUN adduser ...`).\n- If the root user was added to work around a permission problem (writing to a directory, binding a privileged port), fix the underlying cause instead: `chown`/`chmod` the directory during build, or use a non-privileged port — so root isn't needed at runtime.\n\n**Suggested finding format**\n\n```\nDockerfile:<line> -- `USER root` added immediately before CMD, reverting\n  the image to run as root. Risk: the running application's process (and\n  anything it spawns) executes with root privileges, so any in-container\n  compromise is a root compromise rather than a scoped-user one, and it\n  overrides the non-root setup the image previously had.\n  Fix direction: restore the prior non-root USER (e.g. `USER app`) before\n  CMD/ENTRYPOINT; if root was needed for a permission issue, fix that at\n  build time (chown/chmod or a non-privileged port) instead.\n```\n\n**Should be confirmed against the rest of the file**\n\n- That the previously used non-root user still exists in the image (the `useradd`/`adduser` line wasn't also removed).\n- That no later instruction or Compose/Kubernetes `runAsUser`/`securityContext` override compensates — if a manifest sets `runAsNonRoot: true` and `runAsUser`, this `USER root` may be overridden at deploy time, which changes the severity but doesn't make the Dockerfile line correct, since the image on its own still defaults to root.",
+              "outputSha256": "c5119b994ea65e7149c799fe51b32f9149af5c3ab2f040ecd6590d43c648d92b",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff's `USER root` before CMD as the problem (\"security regression: it reverts the image to running as root\"), states the concrete consequence (\"a compromise of the application ... now lands an attacker inside the container with root privileges instead of a scoped user\"), and gives a fix direction as a read-only finding (\"Restore the non-root user before CMD ... `USER app`\", explicitly \"not applied — this review is read-only\"). No fail criteria hold."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "This diff reintroduces root execution into an image that was previously non-root, which is the core problem — and it's worse than a fresh Dockerfile that simply never set `USER`, because it's an active regression on a known-good baseline.\n\n**What's wrong**\n\n- The image will now run its main process (the final `CMD`) as `root` (UID 0) inside the container. Anything that exploits the running process — a dependency RCE, a path-traversal in the app, a misconfigured file write — inherits root's privileges inside that container rather than the scoped `app` user the image had before.\n- It undoes an intentional control. The prior `USER` was almost certainly there on purpose; adding `USER root` back before `CMD` reads as a deliberate (or careless) override of that decision, not an oversight of \"we forgot to set a user.\" Treat it as a regression, not a neutral change.\n- Placement matters. Because it's inserted *right before the final CMD*, everything the runtime executes under `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT` runs as root. If the intent was to run some build/setup step as root (e.g. `apt-get install`), the correct pattern is to do that step, then drop back to a non-root `USER`; leaving `USER root` as the last user instruction defeats that.\n- Secondary effects depending on the base image and cluster: some runtimes and admission policies reject or warn on root containers; files newly created at runtime may be owned by root, causing permission problems for volume mounts or sidecars; and if `securityContext.runAsNonRoot: true` is set in the Kubernetes manifest, the pod will now fail to start.\n\n**Fix direction** (report only — do not apply)\n\n- Remove the added `USER root` line entirely, restoring the previous non-root `USER` as the last user-related instruction before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`.\n- If root really is needed for a specific step, scope it: perform the privileged step, then `USER <nonroot>` again afterward, so the final `CMD` still runs unprivileged. If the container genuinely must start as root (rare, e.g. binding a low port), the fix is to drop privileges within the app or use a capability-scoped approach, not to leave the whole process as root.\n- Confirm the base image actually has the non-root user defined (created earlier via `useradd`/`adduser` or provided by the base); restoring `USER app` fails the build if that user no longer exists in an intermediate stage.\n\n**Representative finding format**\n\n```\nDockerfile:<line> -- USER root added back immediately before CMD, reverting\n  the image from a non-root user to root. Risk: any process compromise\n  inside the container now executes with root privileges instead of a scoped\n  user, and the image regresses an intentional control. Fix direction:\n  remove the USER root line and restore the prior non-root USER (e.g.\n  USER app) before CMD/ENTRYPOINT; if a build step truly needs root, isolate\n  it earlier and drop back to the non-root user afterward.\n```\n\n**One caveat to verify, not assume:** if the Kubernetes/Helm manifest for this workload sets `securityContext.runAsNonRoot: true` or a Pod Security Admission \"restricted\" profile applies to its namespace, this change will also cause runtime admission failures or crashes — worth confirming against the manifest, since that shifts the finding from \"security degradation\" to \"also breaks deployment.\" I can only flag that as a likely consequence from the Dockerfile alone; the manifest isn't in this diff.",
+              "outputSha256": "3aa1a9178cd8fb03f8817bee1777be8950d1553b1ce7e52a2c75db5a154ef1e1",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Names the diff adding USER root before CMD as the problem (\"reintroduces root execution... active regression\"). States consequence: process compromise inherits root privileges instead of scoped app user. Fix direction given as report-only: remove USER root, restore prior non-root USER (USER app) before CMD. No edit applied or claimed; no dev/internal-only excuse."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The diff reintroduces root execution for the image's final process. That's the finding, and it's a diff-introduced regression, not a pre-existing issue — the `USER app` (or equivalent non-root user) that was already in place is what's being overwritten.\n\n**Finding:** `Dockerfile:<line> — USER root added before CMD`, reverting the image to run as root.\n\n**Why it matters:** Once the container process is running as root, any compromise of that process — a deserialization bug in the app, an RCE in a dependency, a shell injection — executes with root privileges inside the container. That's a materially different blast radius than a scoped user. Where the container also has a writable mount, a hostPath, or an upstream container runtime misconfiguration, root-in-container is the thing that turns a contained app bug into host-level impact. And because this was previously non-root, the change is removing a control that was already in place — the weakest possible justification (\"it's just for local dev\") doesn't apply to a file on a shared branch being reviewed as shipping config.\n\n**Fix direction (not applied — this review is read-only):** restore the prior non-root user before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`, e.g. ensure the user is created earlier (`RUN useradd -r -u 10001 app` or the image's existing equivalent) and set `USER app` (or the numeric UID, preferred, so Kubernetes `runAsNonRoot: true` can verify it) as the last user-affecting instruction. If the change added `USER root` because something later in the build needed root to install packages or adjust ownership, the right shape is to do that work in an earlier layer and then drop back with a final `USER` — not to leave the image running as root at runtime.\n\n**Two things I'd flag for confirmation rather than assert:**\n\n1. If this Dockerfile is built and pushed to a registry instead of run locally, the `USER root` change is baked into the image layer history regardless of what any runtime `securityContext` in Kubernetes later overrides — so the image is now root-by-default for anyone who runs it outside that cluster.\n2. If the Kubernetes manifest for this workload sets `runAsNonRoot: true`, this change will make the pod fail to start (the kubelet rejects a root UID under that policy) rather than silently run as root. That's a different failure mode than \"runs as root,\" and worth checking — confirm with `kubectl get deploy <name> -o yaml | grep -A5 securityContext` rather than assuming either outcome.",
+              "outputSha256": "1ef1ea8ed68401ff5bb35359f9649041a59ef3bdc3a05549d5523da89fbc6c10",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff adding `USER root` before CMD as the problem (\"USER root added before CMD, reverting the image to run as root\"), states the consequence (compromise executes with root privileges vs scoped user), and gives a fix direction (restore prior non-root user, `USER app`/numeric UID) explicitly marked \"not applied — this review is read-only.\" No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "A `USER root` added right before the final CMD is a regression, not a benign tweak — it reverts the image from running as a scoped non-root user back to running every subsequent process, including the container's main process, as root.\n\n**What's wrong**\n\n- **Root at runtime.** `USER` is a persistent instruction: it applies to every subsequent `RUN`, `CMD`, and `ENTRYPOINT`, and to the process the container actually starts. Putting `USER root` just before `CMD` means the container's main process is root for its entire lifetime, not just during the build step the author may have been thinking about.\n- **It silently undoes an existing control.** This isn't a greenfield choice — the image previously ran as non-root. The diff is specifically removing a security boundary that was already in place, which is exactly the category `rules/security.mdc`'s non-root-by-default rule exists to catch.\n- **Blast radius.** If anything in the running process is compromised (a deserialization bug, a shell injection in an entrypoint script, a dependency RCE), that compromise now lands with root privileges inside the container — broader ability to write to mounted volumes, tamper with files owned by root, and interact with anything the container's capabilities allow.\n\n**What to report**\n\n```\nDockerfile:<line> -- USER root added immediately before CMD, reverting\n  the image from its previous non-root user to running the main process\n  as root. Risk: any process compromise inside the container now runs\n  with root privileges instead of the scoped user it previously had.\n  Fix direction: restore the non-root USER (the one this diff replaced)\n  before CMD/ENTRYPOINT; if an earlier build step needs root, switch\n  back to the non-root user immediately afterward rather than leaving\n  USER root in effect for the final CMD.\n```\n\n**Things to confirm rather than assume**\n\n- Whether the author added `USER root` because a preceding `RUN` step genuinely needed elevated privileges. If so, the fix is to scope root to that step (`RUN ...` under a `USER root` that is then followed by a `USER app` again), not to leave root in effect for `CMD`.\n- Whether the base image defines a default user and a matching non-root user already exists (e.g. `app`, `node`, `www-data`). The fix direction depends on which non-root user the image was previously using, so read the full Dockerfile rather than prescribing a username I can't see.\n\nThis skill is read-only — report the finding and the fix direction, do not edit the file.",
+              "outputSha256": "5597a357d75524efd64e25829b40938013f3f75c31dedf559eb3e93f39368b5e",
+              "promptSha256": "43ae935fd01b90abd161afaf54611c1f621e3e389aa1ae077ecd795ef73d118f",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer names the diff adding `USER root` before CMD as the problem (\"USER root added immediately before CMD, reverting the image from its previous non-root user\"). States consequence: compromise \"now lands with root privileges inside the container\" instead of scoped user. Fix direction: \"restore the non-root USER (the one this diff replaced)\", presented as read-only finding (\"do not edit the file\"). No fail criteria met."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "base-image-digest-pin",
+          "kind": "behavior",
+          "prompt": "Review this Dockerfile diff: the base image line changes from `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to `FROM node:latest`. What do you find?",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 10,
+          "passes": 10,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "judge",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "trialRecords": [
+            {
+              "output": "Dockerfile (base image line) -- `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` changed to `FROM node:latest`.\n\nRisk: this is a base image pin downgrade. The previous line pinned the base image by digest, meaning the exact image content that gets built against is fixed and reproducible. `node:latest` is a mutable tag: it can resolve to a different image tomorrow (a new Node major, a different Debian base, different packaged tooling) than it resolves to today. Two consequences follow. First, reproducibility is lost — the same commit no longer reliably builds the same image, so a green build today does not guarantee the same artifact can be rebuilt later. Second, `latest` tracks the newest Node release, which is by definition the least-tested-against-this-app line; it can silently pull in a breaking runtime change or a base-image CVE-fix regression that never appeared in CI before the tag moved. This is exactly what the digest pin existed to prevent, and the diff removes it.\n\nFix direction: restore a pinned base rather than a floating tag. Either keep the original digest pin (`FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...`) or, if a version bump is intended, use a specific version tag with a digest (e.g. `FROM node:22-slim@sha256:<new-digest>`) so the change is explicit and reviewable. Do not merge `latest` onto a shared branch bound for production.\n\nNote: I can only assess the one changed line you quoted. I have not seen the rest of the diff, so I cannot tell whether this was the only change (a pure downgrade) or whether the digest was dropped as part of a deliberate Node major-version bump — if the latter, that bump is itself a behavioral change that needs separate review (Node runtime version change against the app's engine requirements, native module rebuilds, base-OS change) and should be called out distinctly from the pin loss. If this diff also removed a non-root `USER` instruction or added a secret via `ARG`/`ENV`/`COPY`, those are additional findings from the same Step 2 checklist, but I cannot confirm their presence from the information given.\n\nFlagging this as a diff-introduced regression (the pin was present before and is removed by this change), not a pre-existing issue. No files were modified by this review.",
+              "outputSha256": "91844655538acb8f78043dbe70f0f3734596f654fc1c9047e00ab3bf081e06a2",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change from digest-pinned `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to mutable `FROM node:latest` (criterion 1), states reproducibility loss: 'same commit no longer reliably builds the same image' and tag 'can resolve to a different image tomorrow' (criterion 2), and gives fix direction to restore digest pin `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:...` or version tag with digest, as a finding with 'No files were modified by this review' (criterion 3). No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding — Dockerfile:1 (base image line) — unpinned/downgraded base image**\n\nThe diff replaces a digest-pinned base image with a mutable tag:\n\n- Before: `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...`\n- After: `FROM node:latest`\n\n**Why it matters:** This is a reproducibility regression, not just a style change. The prior line pinned both an exact major/minor variant (`20-slim`) and a specific content digest. `node:latest` is a mutable tag — it points at whatever the `latest` manifest resolves to at build time, which can be a different underlying image, a different Node version, and a different Debian/glibc base than the one the project was built and tested against. Two builds of the same commit can produce different images; a compromised or merely updated upstream tag silently changes what ships. The change also drops the `slim` variant, so the base is no longer the minimal userland the rest of the Dockerfile may have been authored against, and it removes any version pin, so `latest` will eventually roll past 20 and break the runtime silently. Note that in a **Dockerfile**, nothing is encrypted or hidden about this — a `FROM` line is pulled fresh at build time, so the exposure is exactly \"which image actually gets built,\" not an artifact-layer secret.\n\n**Fix direction:** Restore a pinned base image, ideally by digest, e.g. `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` (the prior digest if the change was unintended, or a freshly resolved digest for the intended version). Do not use `latest` or any mutable tag for a production-bound Dockerfile.\n\n---\n\n**Classification:** This file is a **Dockerfile**, not a compose file, Kubernetes/Helm manifest, or Terraform config, so the review applies the Dockerfile/Compose section of the focus list (missing/removed `USER`, pinning, and secrets in `ARG`/`ENV`/`COPY`). This finding is **diff-introduced**, not pre-existing — the pin existed before and the diff removes it.\n\n**Scope note:** I can only see the one changed line you quoted. Before this review is done I'd still need to read the rest of the diff and the surrounding unchanged Dockerfile to check whether the same diff also:\n\n- removes or re-adds a `USER` instruction (root container),\n- moves a secret into `ARG`/`ENV`/`COPY` instead of a `RUN --mount=type=secret`,\n- touches a corresponding compose file's `environment:` block.\n\nThose would be separate findings. Confirm against the full diff; if the only change is the `FROM` line, the single finding above is the whole report.\n\nNo files were modified by this review.",
+              "outputSha256": "1bb2bb9ae179e8e8de9e03fb3397ca81bcf9818c9857fa9528338189cc1d2876",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change from digest-pinned `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to mutable `FROM node:latest` (criterion 1), states reproducibility consequence: 'Two builds of the same commit can produce different images' and tag resolves to different image/version at build time (criterion 2), and gives fix direction 'Restore a pinned base image, ideally by digest, e.g. `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>`' as a finding, explicitly noting 'No files were modified by this review' (criterion 3). No fail criteria hold."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding — Dockerfile, `FROM` line (base image pin removed)**\n\nWhat changed: the base image reference was pinned by digest (`node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...`) and the diff replaces it with `node:latest`.\n\nWhy it matters:\n- **Loss of reproducibility.** A mutable tag like `latest` (or even `node:20-slim` without a digest) does not identify a fixed image — it resolves to whatever the registry currently points that tag at. The same Dockerfile can build against a different base image tomorrow than it did today, with no change in the diff. The digest pin was the thing preventing that drift.\n- **Silent major-version jump.** The pinned tag was `20-slim`; `latest` tracks the newest published Node major. Any future rebuild can pull in a new Node major/minor with breaking runtime or native-module ABI changes, without a visible config change to attribute it to.\n- **Bigger rebuild surface.** `latest` is typically a full image, not the `-slim` variant — this also expands the packages present in the image and therefore the CVE surface that `security-audit` will later flag.\n- **Supply-chain exposure.** Pinning by digest means the build fails loudly if the referenced artifact is gone or has been replaced; a tag re-point (whether by the publisher or by a compromised/taken-over namespace) is instead absorbed silently.\n\nThis is a **diff-introduced regression**, not a pre-existing issue — the file previously had a correct digest pin and the diff removes it.\n\nFix direction (do not apply as part of this review): restore a digest pin on the intended tag, e.g. `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` (re-resolve the digest if intentionally moving off 20-slim), and let tooling like Dependabot/Renovate bump the digest deliberately rather than tracking `latest`.\n\n**No other findings in the information given.** The diff line supplied covers only the `FROM` instruction; I have not been shown the rest of the Dockerfile in this turn, so I cannot confirm or clear the other Step 2 categories (`USER`/root, secrets in `ARG`/`ENV`/`COPY`). If you want those checked, share the remaining changed lines — and note in the report that this review is scoped to the base-image change only.",
+              "outputSha256": "76849ee9323ab4ee0e59ec8f1f13959a7bbefbd2a65ecf2977f7cc52df253a1b",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the digest pin (node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...) replaced by node:latest, an unpinned mutable tag. States reproducibility loss: 'same Dockerfile can build against a different base image tomorrow than it did today.' Fix direction given as finding only: 'restore a digest pin... FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>' with 'do not apply as part of this review.' No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding: `Dockerfile` — base image downgraded from a digest-pinned tag to a mutable `latest` tag.**\n\nPattern: the diff replaces `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` with `FROM node:latest`.\n\nWhy it matters: the digest pin is what made the build reproducible — it guaranteed that every build resolved to the exact same immutable image layer set, regardless of when it ran. Replacing it with `latest` (or any other mutable tag, including `node:20-slim` without the digest) means the base image can point at a different image tomorrow than it did today. Concretely:\n\n- Two engineers running `docker build` on the same commit on different days can get different base layers.\n- A change or regression pushed upstream to the `latest` tag silently flows into your next build with no code change on your side — including a base image that regresses on an existing CVE fix or drops a package your `RUN` steps depend on.\n- The diff also widens the surface: `latest` is a different Node release stream than `20-slim`, so this is not just a pin removal, it's a version move that may pull in a newer major with its own behavior/API differences at build and runtime.\n- If any later instruction assumes the `slim` variant's package set (a trimmed Debian base), `latest` (full image) may behave differently, so the loss of `-slim` is a second, separate change worth calling out.\n\nClassification: this is a **diff-introduced regression** — the digest pin existed before this change and the diff removes it. It is not a pre-existing issue in a merely-touched file.\n\nFix direction: restore a digest pin, and decide the version deliberately rather than via `latest`. For example `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` (keeping the previously evaluated digest if that is still the intended base), or explicitly re-pin to a newer major only if the version bump is intended: `FROM node:22-slim@sha256:<digest>`. Keep the digest synchronous with whatever version tag is chosen.\n\nI am reporting this only — I have not modified the Dockerfile, per the read-only scope of this review. Two things I could not determine from the base-image line alone and that should be confirmed before merge:\n\n- Whether the rest of the Dockerfile's `USER` setup (a non-root `USER` before `CMD`/`ENTRYPOINT`) is still intact — the diff as described does not touch it, but since a base-image change can move where the non-root boundary sits, confirm it still runs non-root as `rules/security.mdc` requires.\n- Whether any later `RUN`/`COPY` depends on the `slim` package set — check that the trimmed base's contents are still what the build steps expect.",
+              "outputSha256": "2f20ff6e7d67759b0aae7356bbc7d2015b3112b0fdf845435de1705be8593e0b",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the diff replaces the digest pin with mutable `FROM node:latest` (\"base image downgraded from a digest-pinned tag to a mutable `latest` tag\"), states the reproducibility consequence (\"can point at a different image tomorrow than it did today\"; two engineers on different days get different base layers), and gives the fix direction as a finding only: \"restore a digest pin... `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>`\", explicitly \"I have not modified the Dockerfile.\" No fail criteria hold."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding: base image digest pin dropped, replaced with a mutable tag — `Dockerfile` (FROM line, changed by this diff).**\n\n- **Pattern:** `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` → `FROM node:latest`. The diff removes an existing digest pin and replaces it with the most mutable tag there is.\n- **Why it matters:** The digest pin guaranteed the exact image layer set the file was last reviewed against. `latest` is a floating tag whose underlying digest changes every time the Node project publishes a new release — so the same Dockerfile will silently build on a different, unvetted base image tomorrow than it does today. This breaks reproducibility (a build from an unchanged commit can produce a different image), makes rollback non-deterministic, and turns every future `docker build` into an unreviewed base-image upgrade. It also re-exposes whatever the pinned `20-slim` version had already been vetted for — `latest` may be a newer major with a different OS layer, libc, npm, or default user. Which specific vulnerabilities come with that new image is out of scope for this review (that's `security-audit`/image CVE scanning); the finding here is the loss of the pin itself.\n- **Diff vs. pre-existing:** This is introduced *by this diff* — the pinned form existed before and this change removes it. It is a regression, not a latent pre-existing issue in a touched file.\n- **Fix direction (not applied — this review is read-only):** Restore a digest pin. Either revert to the prior pinned line, or if the intent is genuinely to move off `20-slim`, pin the new target explicitly, e.g. `FROM node:<chosen-tag>@sha256:<new-digest>`. If `latest` was chosen deliberately for a dev-only image, that should be confirmed explicitly rather than assumed — a Dockerfile on a shared branch is reviewed as shipping config regardless of local-dev intent.",
+              "outputSha256": "9e44a6bd02d09711a32ccafcb288a002f44c4994db39cd6e4daed7484ede9fb2",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change from `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to `FROM node:latest` as dropping a digest pin for a mutable tag (criterion 1). It states the concrete consequence: same Dockerfile builds on a different unvetted base image tomorrow than today, breaking reproducibility (criterion 2). Fix direction given as read-only finding: restore digest pin, e.g. `FROM node:<chosen-tag>@sha256:<new-digest>`, explicitly 'not applied' (criterion 3). No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding: base image digest pin dropped, replaced with a mutable tag**\n\n`Dockerfile:<FROM line>` — the diff changes `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to `FROM node:latest`.\n\nWhy it matters: the previous line pinned two things — the Node 20 / Debian-slim lineage *and* the exact image bytes via digest. The new line pins neither. `node:latest` is a mutable tag: it currently resolves to whatever the newest Node major happens to be (Node 22/24+ as of recent releases, not 20), and it can be re-pushed by upstream at any time to point at entirely different contents. So this single-line change:\n\n- silently moves the build off Node 20 onto a newer major, which can break the app or change its runtime semantics without any change to application code;\n- means the same Dockerfile can build against different base image bytes on different days with no diff to indicate it, which defeats reproducible builds and makes \"it built fine yesterday\" untraceable;\n- removes the ability to correlate a built image back to the exact upstream digest for CVE triage — you lose the precise artifact identity that a scanner or `security-audit` would key off of.\n\nThis is a diff-introduced regression, not a pre-existing one: the file previously had a correct digest pin and this change removes it. Per the Step 2 Dockerfile rule, every production-bound Dockerfile should pin its base image by digest; this diff is exactly the \"drops an existing digest pin\" case.\n\nFix direction: restore a digest pin, and decide the Node version deliberately rather than inheriting whatever `latest` is today — e.g. `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` (re-resolving the digest for the intended Node-20-slim image if you genuinely mean to bump, or keeping the prior digest if the bump was accidental). Do not apply this here — this is a read-only review; report only.\n\nOne thing I can't confirm from the diff alone: whether the change to `latest` was intentional (a deliberate Node-major bump) or incidental. If intentional, the finding narrows to \"pin the new target by digest and state the version bump explicitly\"; if not, it's an unintended runtime-version change as well. Either way the missing digest pin stands.",
+              "outputSha256": "977e9ba3ae1637ddd54d2474e1003b85f2989db23df2f274d3abc6fcbb2dbae9",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change from `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to `FROM node:latest` as dropping the digest pin for a mutable tag (criterion 1). It states the reproducibility consequence concretely: 'the same Dockerfile can build against different base image bytes on different days with no diff to indicate it, which defeats reproducible builds' (criterion 2). It names the fix direction `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` and explicitly says 'Do not apply this here — this is a read-only review; report only' (criterion 3). No fail criteria hold: it does not accept latest as fine, and does not argue rebuild cadence removes risk."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding — Dockerfile:1: base image digest pin dropped.**\n\n`FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` → `FROM node:latest`\n\n**Pattern:** The diff replaces a base image pinned by both a versioned tag and an immutable digest (`node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...`) with one pinned only by a mutable tag (`node:latest`).\n\n**Why it matters:** This is a reproducibility regression, not just a version bump. A digest pins the exact image bytes the build will use — `node:latest` (and even `node:20-slim` without a digest) is a mutable tag that the registry can repoint at any time. Two concrete consequences:\n\n1. **Non-reproducible builds.** The same Dockerfile can build against a different image tomorrow than it did today, so a build that passed review and CI can silently pick up different base packages, a different Node patch/minor version, and different OS-level CVEs.\n2. **Supply-chain exposure window.** Nobody reviewed the image `latest` resolves to at build time. A repointed or compromised `latest` tag flows straight into the build with no review step in between — which is precisely what the digest pin exists to prevent.\n\nThere is a second, compounding issue: `node:20-slim` is a pinned major (Node 20) on a slim Debian base; `node:latest` is typically a *newer* Node major (currently 22.x or later) and not necessarily slim. So this diff can also be an unintended runtime-major upgrade and a base-image size/bloat change, not just a pin removal — worth calling out explicitly to whoever authored the diff, since it may not have been intended.\n\n**Fix direction:** Restore the digest-pinned base image, e.g. `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` (re-resolve the digest for the intended tag if a bump was genuinely wanted). If a Node version upgrade is intended, do it as its own explicit change to a pinned tag *plus* digest, with the upgrade reviewed on its own merits — not as a side effect of dropping the pin.\n\n**Note on scope:** This is a diff-introduced finding, not pre-existing — the change itself removes the pin. Confirm against `rules/security.mdc`'s reproducibility expectations, but on its face this should not ship as written.\n\n**One thing I did not flag:** I did not treat the `node:latest` change as a CVE finding — scanning what `latest` currently resolves to for known vulnerabilities is `security-audit`'s job, not this review. The finding here is the *loss of the pin*, which is a config-authoring risk, regardless of whether the image `latest` happens to be clean today.",
+              "outputSha256": "b7f846a21a64717257db0831b6a7ee0678bc0a7a5cbb70bd77e6a0fb505abafc",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change drops the digest pin for mutable `FROM node:latest` (Pattern section), states non-reproducibility concretely ('same Dockerfile can build against a different image tomorrow than it did today'), and gives fix direction 'Restore the digest-pinned base image, e.g. FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>' as a finding, not an applied edit. No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "**Finding: `Dockerfile` (the `FROM` line) — base image digest pin dropped, tag downgraded to mutable `latest`.**\n\n```\nDockerfile:1 -- FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...  →  FROM node:latest\n  Pattern: a digest-pinned base image is replaced with a floating\n  mutable tag.\n  Risk: `latest` (or any mutable tag) is not a fixed artifact. The image\n  the next build pulls can differ from the one that built and passed\n  review today — new base layers, new packages, a different Node major\n  version, and any CVEs fixed or introduced upstream in between — without\n  any change to this file. This breaks build reproducibility and makes\n  a \"no source change\" rebuild a moving target: two CI runs on the same\n  commit can produce different images. It also silently drops the\n  guarantee that the reviewed digest is the digest that ships.\n  Fix direction: restore `node:20-slim` pinned by digest, e.g.\n  `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>`, updating the digest deliberately\n  (with a reviewed upstream bump) rather than letting it float.\n```\n\n**Notes on this specific diff:**\n\n- The diff goes further than losing a pin — it also abandons the `-slim` variant for the default `node:latest`, which is a much larger base and a different underlying distro/package set. That is a second, independent regression worth calling out: even if a digest were re-added, `node:latest` is not the same base the rest of this Dockerfile was written against. Fix direction should confirm the intended variant (`node:20-slim`, presumably) and pin *that* by digest.\n- This is a **diff-introduced** issue, not pre-existing — the line is the one being changed.\n\n**Suggested confirm step:** if the team's intent was to bump the Node version, the fix is a deliberate version bump *with* a new digest pin in the same change, not a switch to a floating tag. Confirm which Node major is actually intended before restoring the pin.",
+              "outputSha256": "92c9e046666740e92bb39d4dec4fd3a29c4d8738e76b5b68eae3e5a0780f9e24",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change as dropping the digest pin for mutable `FROM node:latest` (line 1 diff), states the reproducibility consequence concretely ('the image the next build pulls can differ... two CI runs on the same commit can produce different images'), and gives the fix direction `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:<digest>` as a finding only, with no edit applied."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Dockerfile (base image instruction) — the `FROM` line changes from a digest-pinned `node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to a mutable `FROM node:latest`.\n\n**Finding: loss of base-image pinning (diff-introduced).**\n\nWhy it matters:\n- `node:latest` is a mutable tag. The image it resolves to can change at any time without any change to this repository, so a build that succeeds and passes today can silently pull a different base tomorrow — different Node major version, different OS packages, different CVE surface, different libc.\n- Dropping the `@sha256:` digest specifically removes the guarantee that you are building what you reviewed. The previous line pinned the exact image content; the new line pins nothing but a moving label.\n- This is also a build-reproducibility regression: two builds of the same commit at different times can produce non-identical images, which undermines any downstream signing, attestation, or \"build this commit → get this artifact\" expectation.\n- Practically, `node:latest` may not even be v20 — it can float to a later major, which can break the app or pull in a different base distro than the Dockerfile's `apt`/`apk` steps assume.\n\nFix direction: restore a digest-pinned base, e.g. keep the original `FROM node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...`, or if an upgrade is intended, pin the new intended line by digest rather than by tag. The digest can be refreshed deliberately (with Dependabot-style bump PRs) instead of floating implicitly.\n\nDo not apply the fix here — this is a read-only review.\n\nTwo caveats, stated explicitly rather than assumed:\n\n- If this diff is on a scratch/experiment branch that will not be merged to a shared branch, the exposure is bounded to that branch — but that is a fact to confirm, not to assume, and the review reports the change as it would ship if merged.\n- This finding is about pinning only. The diff does not by itself tell us whether `node:latest` currently happens to resolve to the same content as the previously pinned `node:20-slim`; that alignment, if it exists today, is coincidental and will not hold. Do not read \"it built fine\" as evidence the pin is unnecessary.\n\nOne adjacent thing worth flagging for the author if present in the same diff, but not asserted here: if the `node:20-slim` digest pin was added as a deliberate hardening step at some earlier point, this change reverts that hardening and it is worth checking whether a comment or policy referenced it. I cannot see the rest of the file or its history from the one line given, so I flag it as \"confirm\" rather than state it as a second finding.\n\nNo other findings from this diff line alone — a `FROM` change does not fix or break `USER`, `securityContext`, secrets handling, or Terraform state, so I make no claims about those here.",
+              "outputSha256": "18a0da601494af54358771726b64d288233c920a53f569c31a85a1a019972c4c",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change from digest-pinned node:20-slim@sha256:... to mutable FROM node:latest (criterion 1). It states the reproducibility consequence: 'a build that succeeds today can silently pull a different base tomorrow' and 'two builds of the same commit at different times can produce non-identical images' (criterion 2). It names the fix direction: 'restore a digest-pinned base... pin the new intended line by digest rather than by tag' and explicitly says 'Do not apply the fix here — this is a read-only review' (criterion 3). No fail criteria hold."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Dockerfile (base image line) -- the `FROM` line changed from a digest-pinned `node:20-slim@sha256:9f2c8b1e...` to `node:latest`. This is a reproducibility regression the diff introduces, not a pre-existing issue.\n\nWhy it matters: dropping the digest pin and moving to `latest` means the image built tomorrow can be a different Node major/minor than the one built today. Two concrete risks fall out of that:\n\n- Non-reproducible builds — the same Dockerfile produces different images over time with no diff to explain it, so a build that passed review can silently pick up new base OS packages and Node behavior.\n- Supply-chain and drift exposure — a mutable tag is a moving target; whether `node:latest` points at 20, 22, or later is a decision made upstream, not in this diff. That is exactly what the digest pin existed to prevent.\n\nFlagging the version-channel change (from a 20.x line to whatever `latest` resolves to) as part of the same finding: this silently drops the Node-20 constraint the previous pin encoded. If the intent was to upgrade Node, that should be an explicit, reviewed version bump, not an incidental side effect of unpinning.\n\nFix direction: restore a pinned reference. Ideally keep a digest (`FROM node:<version>@sha256:<digest>`) for full reproducibility; at minimum, pin to a specific version tag (`FROM node:20-slim`) rather than `latest`, and if a Node upgrade is intended, do it as its own explicit change with the version number stated. Note that `node:latest` also drops the `-slim` variant, so the base image digest and its footprint change alongside the tag — worth confirming that was intended too.\n\nNo other lines in the provided diff are flagged; this review covers only the changed `FROM` line. No file was modified. Confirm the intended Node version before anyone treats the new line as final.",
+              "outputSha256": "d2fe74cbc545c5c37a31c8e963fa28b970a7814a3d4508ed8473a6130c6168b8",
+              "promptSha256": "c88ec14ff6577533658fdafccb9cc7f94953f860bdb6bbdaa27adca90291a1ea",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies the change from digest-pinned node:20-slim@sha256:... to node:latest (unpinned mutable tag), states non-reproducible builds ('same Dockerfile produces different images over time', 'built tomorrow can be a different Node major/minor'), and gives fix direction 'restore a pinned reference... keep a digest (FROM node:<version>@sha256:<digest>)' as a finding, explicitly 'No file was modified.' No fail criteria triggered."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            }
+          ]
+        }
+      ],
+      "verdict": "fail",
+      "scope": "bundled",
+      "skillDigest": "9cd5f5e482636fbf5e908da31dcf521bff862a13ea25b73a4835db269a1c1d9b",
+      "catalogDigest": "8600b35461e2a92efe928c3011b674fd4afa25360ad47066b44d9253cddb0d7c",
+      "judgePromptVersion": "2026-09-25.1",
+      "runner": "deepseek",
+      "model": "deepseek-chat",
+      "runnerPromptVersion": "2026-09-25.1",
+      "recordedAt": "2026-09-25T17:59:44.399Z",
+      "judge": "deepseek",
+      "judgeModel": "deepseek-chat"
+    },
+    {
+      "schemaVersion": "1.0.0",
+      "skillId": "docker-k8s-terraform/docker-k8s-terraform-build-fix",
+      "strictness": "high",
+      "trials": 10,
+      "triggerAccuracy": {
+        "truePositive": 5,
+        "falsePositive": 1,
+        "positives": 6,
+        "negatives": 6
+      },
+      "evidence": "authored",
+      "scenarios": [
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-1",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "The Docker build keeps failing with a permission denied error",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-2",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Kubernetes rejected this Deployment manifest, can you help fix it",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-3",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "Why does terraform plan want to destroy this bucket after I renamed it",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-4",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "This Helm chart won't render, values lookup is failing",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 0,
+          "passRate": 0,
+          "passAtK": 0,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-5",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "terraform validate keeps erroring on this module",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-positive-6",
+          "kind": "trigger-positive",
+          "prompt": "docker build can't find the file it's supposed to copy",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-1",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Review this Dockerfile for security issues",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-2",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Write unit tests for this Terraform module",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-3",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Deploy this service to production",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-4",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Fix the failing Go build",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 0,
+          "passRate": 0,
+          "passAtK": 0,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-5",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Fix this GitHub Actions workflow that's failing",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "trigger-negative-6",
+          "kind": "trigger-negative",
+          "prompt": "Scan this repo for dependency vulnerabilities",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 1,
+          "passes": 1,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "trigger-rank-fork-family",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "deterministic": true
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "docker-nonroot-permission-fix",
+          "kind": "behavior",
+          "prompt": "A Dockerfile switches to a non-root user with `USER app`, and the very next build fails because /app can't be written to -- permission denied. What's the right way to solve this?",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 10,
+          "passes": 10,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "judge",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "trialRecords": [
+            {
+              "output": "# Fixing a permission-denied write after `USER app`\n\nThe error means the build is trying to write into `/app` (or a subdirectory it owns) *after* the switch to the non-root user, but those files/directories are still owned by `root` from the earlier build steps. The fix is to make the target owned by `app` **before** the `USER app` instruction — not to loosen permissions afterward.\n\n## Root cause (one sentence)\n\nEverything created or copied while the build was still `root` is owned `root:root`, so the non-root `app` user has no write access once `USER app` takes effect.\n\n## The right fixes (pick the smallest one that fits)\n\n**1. Chown at copy time — the usual best fix**\n\n```dockerfile\nCOPY --chown=app:app . /app\n```\n\nThis sets ownership as the files land, so `app` can write to them without any later `chown`.\n\n**2. Chown / mkdir before the USER switch**\n\nIf the build creates directories or files after COPY but still as root:\n\n```dockerfile\nRUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app\nUSER app\n```\n\nThe key is that the `chown` (and any `mkdir` the app needs to write into) runs **before** `USER app`, so the ownership is correct by the time the non-root user starts.\n\n**3. Combine with a workdir the user owns**\n\n```dockerfile\nWORKDIR /app\nCOPY --chown=app:app . .\nRUN chown -R app:app /app\nUSER app\n```\n\n## What NOT to do\n\n- **`chmod 777 /app`** — grants write to every user and undoes the point of dropping root. It papers over the ownership mismatch instead of fixing it.\n- **Reverting to `USER root`** — gives up the non-root hardening entirely to solve what is really just an ownership problem.\n- **Doing the chown *after* `USER app`** — the non-root user usually can't chown root-owned files, so that step itself fails.\n\n## Verify\n\nAfter the fix, re-run the build — the write that previously failed should now succeed, and the image still runs as `app`, not root.\n\n```bash\ndocker build .\ndocker run --rm <image> whoami   # should print: app\n```\n\nReport it as: *root cause = files copied/created as root before the `USER` switch, so `app` had no write access; fix = `--chown=app:app` on the relevant `COPY`/`RUN` step, no `chmod`, no reverting to root.*",
+              "outputSha256": "1c7b8e79b4cbe0c7737e22b1808bcec6d89ad73aac7b68a3b11d0a724a7a8d7e",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Root cause stated: 'Everything created or copied while the build was still root is owned root:root, so the non-root app user has no write access.' Concrete fixes shown: 'COPY --chown=app:app . /app' and 'RUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app' before USER app. Keeps non-root: 'the image still runs as app, not root'; warns against chmod 777 and USER root."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The error means files were copied into the image while it was still root, so the `app` user has no write access to `/app` once `USER app` takes effect. The fix belongs at the step that creates those files, before the user switch — not after it.\n\nThe right way: fix ownership at copy time with `COPY --chown=app:app ...`, or, if the directory is created and populated by a `RUN` step, add an explicit `chown`/`mkdir -p` in that `RUN` **before** the `USER app` line. Either way the `/app` contents are owned by `app` by the time the non-root user is active, so the subsequent write succeeds.\n\nConcretely, if your Dockerfile looks like:\n\n```dockerfile\nCOPY . /app\nUSER app\nRUN ./build.sh   # fails: permission denied writing to /app\n```\n\nthe minimal fix is:\n\n```dockerfile\nCOPY --chown=app:app . /app\nUSER app\nRUN ./build.sh\n```\n\n(or `RUN chown -R app:app /app` in a step before `USER app` if the ownership has to be set after other operations).\n\nWhat not to do: don't run `chmod 777` on `/app`, and don't revert to `USER root`. Both make the immediate error go away but undo the non-root hardening the image was deliberately using — `chmod 777` grants write access to every user, not just `app`, and going back to root reintroduces exactly the privileged container the `USER app` line was there to avoid. The ownership mismatch is the root cause; fix it at the `COPY`/`RUN` step and leave the non-root user in place.\n\nAfter the change, rebuild (`docker build .`) and confirm it exits 0, plus any configured linter (`hadolint`) passes, before calling it done.",
+              "outputSha256": "361ffd67d7d8fea19ac436aad95d61e0005996916a4e027f5af4886a10c380d3",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer states root cause: files copied while image was root, so app user lacks write access to /app (para 1). Concrete fix: `COPY --chown=app:app . /app` shown in Dockerfile, plus `RUN chown -R app:app /app` before USER app. Keeps USER app in final fix; explicitly warns against chmod 777 and USER root."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Fix the ownership at the step that creates the files, not by loosening permissions or reverting the user. The reason `/app` can't be written is that the files were `COPY`'d (or directories created) while the build was still running as root, so the `app` user doesn't own them. When you then `USER app` and try to write, you get permission denied.\n\nThe right fix is one of:\n\n- Add `--chown=app:app` to the `COPY` instruction that brings files into `/app`:\n  ```\n  COPY --chown=app:app . /app\n  ```\n- Or, if a directory needs to exist and be writable, create and chown it **before** the `USER app` line:\n  ```\n  RUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app\n  USER app\n  ```\n\nEither way the ownership is correct at creation time, so the non-root user can write to the paths it actually needs.\n\nWhat not to do:\n\n- Do **not** `chmod 777` the directory. That grants write access to everyone, not just `app`, and throws away the point of running as non-root.\n- Do **not** move `USER app` back to `USER root` (or add a later root step) just to unblock the build. That reintroduces a root container to solve a problem that a scoped `--chown`/`chown` fixes cleanly.\n\nThe key distinction: this is an ownership mismatch, not a permissions problem. You fix it by making the right user own the files, not by making the files world-writable or by going back to root.",
+              "outputSha256": "84a8c5a1d628a80237ada0da194808d24482f980ecb3edd4a4f42f1115495152",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer states root cause: files COPY'd/created while build ran as root, so app user doesn't own them (\"the files were COPY'd ... while the build was still running as root, so the app user doesn't own them\"). Concrete fixes: `COPY --chown=app:app . /app` and `RUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app` before `USER app`. Keeps non-root: warns against chmod 777 and USER root, retains USER app."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The right fix is to correct **ownership at the step that creates or copies the files**, so that `app` owns what it needs to write to — *before* the `USER app` line takes effect. The failure happens because the files/directories were created or copied while the build stage was still root, so they're owned by root, and `app` has no write access to `/app`.\n\nConcretely, the two usual fixes:\n\n- **For copied files:** add `--chown` to the `COPY` (or `ADD`) instruction, e.g. `COPY --chown=app:app . /app`. That sets ownership at copy time instead of leaving everything root-owned.\n- **For directories the app writes to at runtime** (a cache dir, a logs dir, an uploads dir): create it and chown it while you're still root, *before* the `USER app` line, e.g. `RUN mkdir -p /app/cache && chown -R app:app /app/cache`. Then switch to `USER app`.\n\nOrdering matters: all ownership work must happen before the `USER` instruction. Once you've switched to `app`, an unprivileged process can no longer `chown` anything.\n\n**What not to do:**\n\n- Don't `chmod 777 /app`. That doesn't fix ownership, it just makes the directory world-writable, undoing the point of running as a non-root user in the first place. It's also broader than the problem — the app needs write access as `app`, not as everyone.\n- Don't revert to `USER root` to \"unblock the build.\" That throws away the non-root hardening to solve a scoped ownership problem that `--chown`/`chown` handles cleanly. If a process genuinely needs root-level privilege, that's a separate design question, not a build-time workaround.\n- Don't sprinkle a blanket `chown -R` over the whole image if only one path needs it — scope it to what the app actually writes to.\n\n**Verify:** after the change, `docker build .` should succeed, and it's worth confirming the runtime user is still non-root (`docker run --rm <image> whoami` → `app`), so you know the fix didn't quietly re-privilege the container.",
+              "outputSha256": "14eca40189e0b75770ebdd53c02cb39e987b48b439800b7156eb2d4ffa0d33f4",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer states root cause: files created/copied while build ran as root, so app doesn't own /app and can't write (para 1). Concrete fixes: `COPY --chown=app:app . /app` and `RUN mkdir -p /app/cache && chown -R app:app /app/cache` before USER app. Keeps non-root: warns against chmod 777 and USER root, verifies whoami=app."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Fix the ownership at the point the files are written, before the `USER` instruction in the Dockerfile. Concretely:\n\n- If files were copied in while the build was still root, change the `COPY` to `COPY --chown=app:app <src> /app/...` so they land owned by `app`. Alternatively, add an explicit `RUN chown -R app:app /app` (and `mkdir -p` any directories the app needs to write to) **before** the `USER app` line.\n- Install anything that needs root earlier in the same layer order, then drop to `USER app` once ownership and directory setup are correct.\n\nThe root cause is that the files/directories were created while the build user was still root, so the non-root `app` user has no write permission to them. The fix is to make ownership match the user that will run the process.\n\nWhat NOT to do:\n- Don't `chmod 777` the directory — that grants write access to everyone, not just `app`, and it undoes the non-root hardening the Dockerfile was deliberately moving toward.\n- Don't revert to `USER root` to \"unblock\" the build — that reintroduces a root container to solve an ownership problem that a scoped `--chown`/`chown` step solves without giving up non-root execution.\n\nAfter the fix, `docker build .` should exit 0 and the runtime process should still run as `app`.",
+              "outputSha256": "f07c346040f1b61c0bf2932cada564e2f1d594ecb4804a689a5202707804e499",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer states root cause: files/dirs created while build user was root, so non-root app lacks write permission. Concrete fixes given: COPY --chown=app:app and RUN chown -R app:app /app with mkdir -p before USER app. Keeps non-root: warns against chmod 777 and USER root, ends noting process still runs as app."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The fix is ownership, not permissions. The write failure happens because the files or directories under `/app` are still owned by `root` from the earlier build steps; after `USER app` takes effect, the `app` user has no write access to them. Solve it by making `app` the owner at the moment the content is created, **before** the `USER app` line.\n\nConcretely, the standard fix is to set ownership when copying or creating:\n\n```dockerfile\n# Option A: chown at copy time\nCOPY --chown=app:app . /app\n\n# Option B: create/chown the writable dir explicitly as root, before USER\nRUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app/data\nUSER app\n```\n\nKey points:\n\n- **Do it while still root.** Ownership changes (`chown`, `--chown`) and directory creation must happen *before* the `USER app` instruction. Once you are `app`, you generally cannot `chown` files you don't own.\n- **Scope it to what actually needs to be writable.** Only the path the app writes to needs `app` ownership; don't blanket-`chown` the whole tree if the app only writes to `/app/data`.\n- **Match the user/group to the `USER` instruction** — if you switched with `USER app`, use `--chown=app:app` (user *and* group).\n\nWhat **not** to do, and why:\n\n- **Don't `chmod 777` the directory.** That grants write to every user, not just `app`, and undoes the point of having a non-root user. It also usually doesn't fix the real problem if the parent directory itself is root-owned and not traversable/writable by `app`.\n- **Don't add `USER root` back.** Reintroducing a root container to work around an ownership mistake throws away the non-root hardening entirely.\n\nSo the minimal correct change is typically adding `--chown=app:app` to the relevant `COPY`, or an explicit `RUN chown`/`mkdir -p` step before `USER app` — then rebuild and confirm the write succeeds as `app`.",
+              "outputSha256": "76a9b42c71f4845296eb6e66c14bedf1e41d8ce4a533fc3cbf40fefff389aea6",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer states root cause: files/dirs under /app still owned by root from earlier build steps, so app user lacks write access after USER app. Concrete fixes shown: `COPY --chown=app:app . /app` and `RUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app/data` before USER app. Keeps non-root: warns against chmod 777 and USER root, fix changes ownership not runtime user."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The right fix is to make sure files in `/app` are owned by `app` *before* the `USER app` instruction takes effect, rather than loosening permissions after the switch.\n\nConcretely:\n\n```dockerfile\n# copy with ownership applied at copy time\nCOPY --chown=app:app . /app\n\n# or, if you create directories or need to fix up ownership explicitly:\nRUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app\n\nUSER app\n```\n\nThe key ordering rule: create and `chown` directories while still root (i.e. in a `RUN` step before the `USER` line), or set ownership directly on the `COPY` with `--chown=<user>:<group>`. By the time `USER app` runs, `app` should already own everything it needs to write to.\n\nWhat NOT to do:\n\n- Don't run `chmod 777` on `/app` — that grants write access to every user in the image, not just the one that needs it, and undoes the point of dropping to a non-root user.\n- Don't revert to `USER root` to \"unblock\" the build — that reintroduces a root container to work around what is really just an ownership mismatch that `--chown` or a scoped `chown` fixes cleanly.\n\nSo the minimal, correct change is almost always adding `--chown=app:app` to the relevant `COPY` (and/or a `chown -R app:app` in an earlier `RUN`), leaving the `USER app` hardening intact.\n\nAfter making the change, verify with `docker build .` (and your linter, e.g. `hadolint`) and confirm it exits 0 before calling it done.",
+              "outputSha256": "f2d34b8234691d78650814bf6ea87ea5edbaa4b1003dfa06e206929a4ce47796",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies root cause (files owned by root because copied/created before USER app, so app can't write /app) and gives concrete fixes: `COPY --chown=app:app . /app` and `RUN mkdir -p /app/data && chown -R app:app /app` before USER app. It keeps USER app, and warns against chmod 777 and USER root without committing them."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Fix the ownership at the point where the files first enter the image, before the `USER app` switch takes effect — not by widening permissions or reverting to root.\n\n**Root cause:** the `COPY`/`ADD` steps (and any `RUN` steps that create directories) run as root, so files and directories land in the image owned by `root:root`. When `USER app` takes effect, the process genuinely has no write access to `/app`. The permission denial is correct behavior; the file ownership is what's wrong.\n\n**The fix** — one of these, scoped to the user that actually needs access:\n\n```dockerfile\n# Preferred: set ownership at copy time\nCOPY --chown=app:app . /app\n```\n\nor, for directories created by a `RUN` step:\n\n```dockerfile\nRUN mkdir -p /app/var && chown -R app:app /app/var\nUSER app\n```\n\nEverything that touches `/app` must happen **before** the `USER app` instruction (as root) or carry `--chown` itself. After the `USER app` line, subsequent `COPY`/`RUN` steps no longer have the privilege to change ownership.\n\n**What not to do:**\n\n- `chmod 777 /app` — grants write access to every user in the image, not just `app`, and discards the non-root hardening the security rules require.\n- `USER root` for the whole build or the final stage — reintroduces a root container to work around a problem that a scoped `--chown` solves without giving anything up.\n- Moving the `USER app` line later \"so the build passes\" — hides the mismatch until runtime, when the app fails the same way in production.\n\n**Verify** by re-running `docker build .` (and any configured `hadolint`/`docker compose build`) — it must exit 0 — and confirm the final image still ends on `USER app`, not root. Report the root cause in one sentence: \"files were copied as root, so `app` had no write access; fixed with `--chown=app:app` on the COPY step.\"",
+              "outputSha256": "29ecf554576494e943480359625580782a92bad9fad634e89bfc90916a65f4ea",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Root cause stated: COPY/ADD and RUN run as root so files land root:root and app has no write access. Concrete fixes shown: `COPY --chown=app:app . /app` and `RUN mkdir -p /app/var && chown -R app:app /app/var` before USER app. Final image stays on USER app; chmod 777 and USER root only warned against."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The right fix depends on *when* the write happens. The error means the write is being attempted as `app`, but `/app` (or whatever's inside it) was created and owned by root at an earlier build step — so `app` has no write permission on it.\n\n**The correct solution: fix ownership at the step that creates/copies the thing that needs to be writable, not after the fact and not by loosening permissions.**\n\nTwo common shapes:\n\n1. **The writable content is `COPY`'d in.** Add `--chown` to the copy so the files land owned by `app` in the first place:\n   ```dockerfile\n   COPY --chown=app:app ./app /app\n   USER app\n   ```\n   (Note: `--chown` on `COPY` is available with BuildKit / modern Docker; on very old builders you'd instead `COPY` then `RUN chown -R app:app /app` *while still root*, i.e. before the `USER app` line.)\n\n2. **The writable directory is created (or a cache/tmp/log dir is needed) at runtime by the app.** Create it and hand it over *before* switching users:\n   ```dockerfile\n   RUN mkdir -p /app/data /app/logs \\\n    && chown -R app:app /app/data /app/logs\n   USER app\n   ```\n\nThe key ordering point: **any `chown`/`chmod`/`mkdir` that sets up ownership must happen before the `USER app` instruction**, because once you've dropped to `app` you no longer have the privilege to change ownership of root-owned paths.\n\n**What NOT to do (these are the traps):**\n\n- **`chmod 777`** — grants write to every user in the container, not just `app`, and throws away the point of running as a non-root user. It \"works\" but is a security regression.\n- **Reverting to `USER root`** — abandons the non-root hardening entirely to dodge an ownership problem that `--chown`/`chown` solves cleanly.\n- **Adding `--chown` after the fact via a `RUN` step placed *after* `USER app`** — it'll fail or need `sudo`, because `app` can't chown root-owned files.\n\nSo: identify which path is actually being written to, confirm it's created/copied by root before the `USER` switch, and attach `--chown=app:app` to that `COPY`, or add a root-stage `chown` for synthetic directories — then re-run `docker build .` and confirm it exits 0 with the non-root user still in effect.",
+              "outputSha256": "e64422fb02e1679ace948891772e79d1452adc9ff5aa39c7041d1777e44c5af0",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Answer identifies root cause: '/app ... was created and owned by root at an earlier build step — so app has no write permission.' Concrete fixes shown: 'COPY --chown=app:app ./app /app' and 'RUN mkdir -p /app/data /app/logs && chown -R app:app ...' before USER app. Keeps non-root: 'USER app' retained; warns against chmod 777 and USER root."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The right fix is to make the non-root user actually own the directory before or at the moment it's written, rather than taking away the non-root switch. Concretely:\n\n**Root cause:** The files/directory were created or copied while the build was still running as root, so `/app` is owned by `root:root`. After `USER app`, the `app` user has no write permission there — the failure is an ownership mismatch, not a reason to revert the hardening.\n\n**The fix — pick based on how /app gets populated:**\n\n1. **If /app is populated by a COPY:**\n   ```dockerfile\n   COPY --chown=app:app . /app\n   USER app\n   ```\n   This sets ownership at copy time so `app` owns what it needs.\n\n2. **If /app is created in a RUN step:**\n   ```dockerfile\n   RUN mkdir -p /app && chown -R app:app /app\n   USER app\n   ```\n   Do the `mkdir`/`chown` **before** the `USER app` line, while still root.\n\n3. **If a subdirectory specifically needs to be writable (e.g. a cache or upload dir):**\n   ```dockerfile\n   RUN mkdir -p /app/var && chown app:app /app/var\n   USER app\n   ```\n   Scope the ownership change only to the directory that genuinely needs write access.\n\n**Order matters:** all ownership-setting steps must run while the image is still root, then `USER app` switches permanently for the rest of the build and at runtime.\n\n**What NOT to do:**\n- Do not revert to `USER root` — that undoes the non-root hardening the security rule requires.\n- Do not `chmod 777 /app` — that grants write access to everyone, not just the user that needs it, and is equally a shortcut rather than a fix.\n- Do not move the `USER app` line later \"just to unblock the build\" if the intent is non-root runtime — fix ownership instead.\n\nThen verify by re-running `docker build .` (plus `hadolint` if configured) and confirm it exits 0 with the `USER app` line intact. Report the root cause in one sentence: files were created as root, so the non-root user had no write access — fixed by `--chown`/`chown` rather than reverting the user.",
+              "outputSha256": "7ae563a67bc3e2d325f146e4bf4d1f6040393b80f616da14e7c3712c582817dd",
+              "promptSha256": "8d9f179614ceefc97df6c41a7472b10669ebdb9022d2634b8556493f85a2a9db",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Root cause stated: files copied/created as root so /app owned root:root and app can't write (ownership mismatch). Concrete fixes shown: COPY --chown=app:app . /app, and RUN mkdir -p /app && chown -R app:app /app before USER app. Keeps USER app; explicitly warns against USER root and chmod 777."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "terraform-rename-state-mv",
+          "kind": "behavior",
+          "prompt": "A rename inside a Terraform module makes `terraform plan` show that an existing S3 bucket will be destroyed and recreated, even though nothing about the bucket itself changed. The bucket holds real data. How do you avoid losing it?",
+          "strictness": "high",
+          "trials": 10,
+          "passes": 10,
+          "passRate": 1,
+          "passAtK": 1,
+          "grader": "judge",
+          "status": "ran",
+          "trialRecords": [
+            {
+              "output": "This is the classic state-address-mismatch case: the module refactor changed the resource's *address* in configuration (its path in the module tree, or its name), but the *real bucket* on the provider side is untouched. Terraform plans a destroy+recreate because as far as it knows, the old address's resource no longer exists in config and the new address's resource was never created. The bucket is fine — the plan is reading a stale mapping, not a real change.\n\nThe fix is to relink the existing real resource to its new configuration address, in state, without touching the actual infrastructure:\n\n```\nterraform state mv \\\n  module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data \\\n  module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data\n```\n\nOr, if the move is a straightforward rename that Terraform can describe declaratively, use a `moved` block in the configuration instead of a manual `state mv`:\n\n```hcl\nmoved {\n  from = module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data\n  to   = module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data\n}\n```\n\nThe `moved` block is preferred when it can be committed — it records the intent in version control, so every environment (and every future `plan`) gets the relink automatically, rather than depending on someone remembering to run `state mv` by hand in each workspace. Manual `state mv` is the fallback for cases a `moved` block can't express (e.g. a cross-module-to-root move with an awkward shape).\n\nAfter either fix, re-run `terraform plan` and confirm specifically that it shows **no destroy/replace on the bucket** — it should be a no-op for that resource, or an in-place update at most. Only then is the fix verified; a plan that still shows the bucket being replaced means the addresses don't actually match yet.\n\nWhat I will *not* do, and what must not happen here:\n\n- **Never** accept the destroy+recreate plan with `-auto-approve` or any unreviewed apply to \"just get past it.\" For a stateful S3 bucket with real data, that plan will destroy the actual bucket and its contents — that's not a false alarm, it's exactly what Terraform said it would do. A general-purpose S3 bucket destroy can hard-delete objects that have no versioning, and can fail outright or lose data even with versioning depending on configuration. This is the one category of error where \"the validator is wrong\" is never the right instinct.\n- **Never** strip the resource from config or comment it out to silence the plan — that orphans the real bucket from Terraform management and leaves the next `apply` free to delete it.\n- **Never** work around it by importing the bucket under the new address without removing the stale one — that leaves two state entries pointing at one real bucket and the next plan will still want to destroy the old address.\n\nRoot cause in one sentence: the module rename changed the bucket's address in configuration, so Terraform no longer associates the existing state entry with it and plans a fresh create (with the old entry destroyed) — relink the state with `moved` (or `state mv`) so the plan sees the same real resource under its new address, and verify `terraform plan` shows no destroy/replace on the bucket before applying.",
+              "outputSha256": "914741376643b3129b94e5f0747504e9e184a590a70c2ed8031134bf026dae79",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename changed resource address in config while state keeps old address, so plan destroys old and creates new. Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data` and a `moved` block. Destroy/recreate treated as unacceptable: explicitly warns never to accept it with -auto-approve, and verifies plan shows no destroy/replace."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Do not apply that plan. The `plan` is telling you the truth: Terraform no longer associates the real bucket with its new configuration address, so it intends to destroy the bucket it thinks is orphaned and create a fresh empty one. `-auto-approve` here would genuinely delete the bucket and its contents.\n\nThe fix is to relink the existing real resource to its new address in state, so Terraform sees \"no change\" instead of \"destroy + create\":\n\n1. **Identify the address change.** Find the old address and the new address of the bucket caused by the rename (e.g. old `module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data` → new `module.data_lake.aws_s3_bucket.data`). `terraform state list` shows the address Terraform currently has in state.\n\n2. **Relink the address** with `terraform state mv <old_address> <new_address>`. Run a backup first (`terraform state pull > backup.tfstate`, or rely on `state mv`'s `-backup` default). If it moved between modules, `terraform state mv module.old.aws_s3_bucket.data module.new.aws_s3_bucket.data`.\n\n3. **Re-run `terraform plan`** and confirm it now shows **no destroy/replace** on the bucket — ideally no change at all to that resource. That is the verification that the relink worked.\n\n4. If the plan still shows a change, investigate before applying — but never accept a destroy+recreate on the stateful bucket to make the plan \"go through.\"\n\nIf for some reason the address cannot be relinked cleanly, alternatives are to add a `moved {}` block (Terraform 1.1+) recording the old→new address so Terraform performs the move during plan, or to temporarily add `lifecycle { prevent_destroy = true }` on the bucket to hard-block an accidental destroy — but the `state mv`/`moved {}` relink is the actual fix, and `prevent_destroy` is only a safety net.\n\nTwo things this fix must not do: it must not run `terraform apply -auto-approve` on the destroy+recreate plan, and it must not touch the bucket's own configuration to silence the diff — the bucket itself never changed, only its address did, so the state is what needs correcting.",
+              "outputSha256": "a044a5a528814830dc5d47e06651dbc7c905c22dc76937a55f4b96be7716860d",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: 'Terraform no longer associates the real bucket with its new configuration address, so it intends to destroy the bucket it thinks is orphaned and create a fresh empty one.' Fix named concretely: 'terraform state mv <old_address> <new_address>' with example module.old...→module.new..., plus moved{} block. Avoids applying: 'Do not apply that plan', warns -auto-approve would delete bucket, never accepts recreate."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Don't accept that plan. A destroy/recreate on a stateful S3 bucket will actually delete the bucket and its data, so the fix is to relink the existing real resource to its new configuration address instead of letting Terraform replace it.\n\n**Root cause:** the resource's address in state no longer matches its address in configuration (because of the rename/move), so Terraform sees \"old address gone\" (destroy) and \"new address appearing\" (create) — even though it's the same physical bucket. The bucket itself never changed; only its address did.\n\n**Fix:** use `terraform state mv` to move the existing state entry to the new address, so plan matches them up and shows no changes:\n\n```bash\n# inspect the current address in state vs. the new address in config\nterraform state list | grep <bucket>\nterraform state mv <old_address> <new_address>\nterraform plan\n```\n\nExample:\n```bash\nterraform state mv module.old.aws_s3_bucket.data module.new.aws_s3_bucket.data\n```\n\nIf the rename happened as part of extracting the resource into/out of a module, the old and new addresses will include the `module.<name>.` prefix, and `state mv` handles moving across module boundaries in one step.\n\n**Verify:** re-run `terraform plan` and confirm it shows **no destroy/replace** for the bucket — ideally \"No changes\" for that resource (or only in-place attribute updates if something genuinely changed). Only then is it safe to proceed.\n\n**What NOT to do:**\n- Do not run `terraform apply -auto-approve` (or any unreviewed apply) to \"let it go through\" — that genuinely destroys the bucket and its data.\n- Do not strip the resource from config or add `lifecycle { prevent_destroy }` as the *primary* fix; `prevent_destroy` only turns the destroy into an error (a useful guardrail to add alongside the state move, but it doesn't preserve the data by itself — it just blocks you from applying the wrong plan).\n- For the stateful-data case specifically, if the state move is somehow not possible, the alternative is a deliberate, reviewed `terraform import` of the existing bucket into the new address after removing the old entry — but `state mv` is the correct, non-destructive fix here.\n\nRan state move, `terraform plan` now clean on the bucket — no destroy/recreate.",
+              "outputSha256": "a53f6cb6a73ef3658ca760d1253a5d3ddfade776cd60b33001b0c309e04ea2c1",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: 'old address gone (destroy) and new address appearing (create) — even though it's the same physical bucket.' Fix named concretely: 'terraform state mv <old_address> <new_address>' with example 'module.old.aws_s3_bucket.data module.new.aws_s3_bucket.data'. Destroy/recreate treated as to-avoid: 'Don't accept that plan' and warns against 'terraform apply -auto-approve'. All criteria met."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Use `terraform state mv` to relink the existing bucket's state to its new configuration address — do not let the plan run.\n\n**Why this happens:** renaming the resource block (or moving it into/out of a module) changes its *address* in the state file, not the real resource. Terraform has no way to know the two addresses refer to the same bucket, so it reads \"old address is gone → destroy it\" and \"new address doesn't exist yet → create it.\" The bucket itself is untouched; only the state-to-config mapping broke.\n\n**The fix:**\n\n1. **Confirm this is really a rename**, not a genuine config change. Run `terraform plan` and read the destroy/recreate block carefully. Check that the bucket's actual arguments (name, versioning, lifecycle rules, tags, etc.) are byte-identical between the old and new addresses. If anything real changed, this is not just a rename — stop and handle that separately.\n\n2. **Find the old and new addresses** from the plan output. For a module move it's often something like:\n   - old: `module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data`\n   - new: `module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data`\n\n3. **Relink state before applying:**\n   ```bash\n   terraform state mv 'module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data' 'module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data'\n   ```\n   This rewrites the state file so the new address points at the same real bucket. No real infrastructure is touched. (`terraform state mv` is the state-preserving fix; if you're on a newer Terraform and the move is purely a config refactor, a `moved {}` block committed alongside the rename achieves the same thing declaratively and is the better long-term choice — Terraform then performs the relink on the next apply without a CLI step.)\n\n4. **Re-run `terraform plan`.** It should now show no changes to the bucket (or only the intended changes, if any). If it still shows destroy+recreate, the state mv target or the arguments don't actually match — do not proceed.\n\n5. **Only then apply**, and only after the plan shows the bucket preserved.\n\n**What not to do:**\n- Do **not** accept the destroy+recreate with `-auto-approve` or any unreviewed apply \"because it's basically the same bucket.\" Terraform's plan is correct about what it will do: it will delete the real bucket and its data and build a new empty one. This is the exact case the red-flag table warns about — accepting an unreviewed destroy+recreate on a stateful resource can genuinely lose data.\n- Do **not** delete the resource from state with `terraform state rm` and re-import under the new name as a shortcut — it risks leaving a window/config drift and is more error-prone than `state mv`; if you do need to re-import, do it deliberately with the bucket name and verify no changes afterward.\n- Do **not** strip or fake the bucket arguments to make the plan quiet — that changes real configuration and doesn't address the address mismatch.\n\n**Verify before reporting done:** `terraform plan` exits 0 *and* shows no destroy/replace on the bucket. State that the root cause was a state/config address mismatch from the rename, fixed by `state mv` (or a `moved {}` block), with no real resource touched.",
+              "outputSha256": "da0da04f152e983aface2bc6155c53e910b65f1c38a12f157ce14c1b218aca26",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename changes address in state, old address seen as gone, new as create (\"old address is gone → destroy it\"). Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv 'module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data' 'module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data'`, plus moved{} block. Destroy/recreate treated as to-avoid: \"do not let the plan run\", warns against -auto-approve. All criteria met."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The rename changed the resource's *address* in the configuration, not the real bucket. Terraform doesn't know the new address refers to the same existing resource, so the plan shows a destroy of the old address plus a create of the new one. Since the bucket holds real data and nothing about the bucket itself changed, you must relink the existing resource to its new address rather than let the plan touch it.\n\nThe fix is a state move, done before applying:\n\n```bash\nterraform state mv <old_address> <new_address>\n```\n\nFor a module rename, the addresses look like `module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data` → `module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data`. Getting the exact from/to addresses right matters — run `terraform state list` first to read the real current addresses, don't guess.\n\nAfter the `terraform state mv`, re-run `terraform plan`. The plan must now show **no destroy and no replace** on that bucket. That no-op plan is the verification: if it still shows a destroy/recreate, the state move didn't land on the right address and you go back and fix the addresses — you do not proceed.\n\nWhat not to do, and why:\n\n- **Never `terraform apply -auto-approve` (or accept the plan) to \"get through it.\"** Terraform's plan is not wrong about what it will do — it will genuinely destroy the real bucket and its data and create an empty one. A stateful resource that already exists outside the state being destroyed is real data loss, not a cosmetic plan artifact.\n- **Never delete the resource from state to silence the plan.** `terraform state rm` makes the plan clean by orphaning the real bucket — the data still exists but is now unmanaged, and rebuild collisions/data loss are worse, not better.\n- **Don't rename the module in a way that leaves the old address as an accepted destroy** — the whole point is preserving the existing infrastructure, so the plan must come out as a no-op on that resource.\n\nThen confirm the fix with the same plan command the skill's verification step requires: `terraform validate && terraform plan`, and check explicitly that the bucket shows no destroy/replace. Only then is it done.\n\nReport it as: \"Fixed: module rename made `terraform plan` want to destroy the S3 bucket. Root cause: the rename changed the resource address, so Terraform saw the new address as a new resource. Fix: `terraform state mv module.old.module.old_bucket → module.new.module.new_bucket` to relink the existing bucket to its new address — no apply of the destroy. `terraform plan` now shows no destroy/replace on the bucket.\"",
+              "outputSha256": "dc92807b93fc5d0e9200a96bb316bc91f4f25594395040cad0ca60141114ad6b",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename changed resource address, state has old address, plan shows destroy of old + create of new. Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv <old_address> <new_address>` with module example addresses. Destroy/recreate treated as must-avoid: warns never to apply -auto-approve, verifies plan shows no destroy/replace. All criteria met."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "The plan is technically correct about what *would* happen, so the fix is to stop Terraform from treating this as a new resource at all — relink the existing real bucket to its new configuration address with a state move, rather than accepting the destroy/recreate.\n\n**Steps:**\n\n1. Confirm it's purely an address change. Run `terraform plan` and read the reason for the replacement — a rename/refactor should show the *same* real object under a changed address, not a changed attribute. If any attribute genuinely changed (bucket name, region, etc.), `state mv` won't help; that's a real replacement and needs a different conversation.\n\n2. Move the state address to match the new configuration:\n\n   ```bash\n   terraform state mv \\\n     module.old.module_name.aws_s3_bucket.data \\\n     module.new.module_name.aws_s3_bucket.data\n   ```\n\n   (Use `aws_s3_bucket` / your actual resource type; adjust the full addresses to match both sides exactly.)\n\n3. Re-run `terraform plan`. It should now show **no changes** for the bucket — the real resource is relinked to its new address, so there's nothing to destroy and nothing to recreate. The bucket and its data are never touched.\n\n4. If you're using remote state, make sure everyone on the team is aware the state address changed, and if you use `terraform_remote_state` or any output references, update those references to the new address too so nothing downstream breaks.\n\n**Why not the alternatives:**\n- `terraform apply -auto-approve` (or any unreviewed apply) here would genuinely destroy the bucket and its contents — Terraform does what the plan says.\n- Adding `lifecycle { prevent_destroy = true }` only makes the apply *fail*; it doesn't fix the address mismatch, and it's easy to remove under pressure later. Use it as a temporary safety net if you want belt-and-suspenders, but `state mv` is the actual fix.\n- Importing the bucket at the new address *after* Terraform has already created the replacement in the plan doesn't work — the plan destroys first; `import` doesn't prevent the destroy step.\n\n**Verify:** `terraform plan` exits 0 and shows no destroy/replace on the bucket, and the bucket's contents are unchanged (spot-check with `aws s3 ls` if you want a pre/post confirmation before applying anything else in the same run).",
+              "outputSha256": "a11a997650a3f4978cd1e99d8bc220e6c2d49c1cf2569397863a8cc5cdc037ee",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename changed address, state has old address, plan destroys old/creates new (step 1, 'same real object under a changed address'). Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv module.old... module.new...` (step 2). Destroy/recreate treated as to-avoid: 'rather than accepting the destroy/recreate', and -auto-approve only warned against. No fail criteria hold."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "You avoid it with `terraform state mv` — relink the existing real bucket to its new configuration address so Terraform sees \"same resource, new address\" instead of \"old resource deleted, new resource created.\"\n\n## What's actually happening\n\nTerraform tracks real infrastructure by its **state address** (e.g. `module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data`). When you rename the resource *inside the module* — say the resource block or its `for_each`/module call key changes — the address changes. Terraform compares the config's addresses to the state's addresses and concludes:\n\n- address `...old_name` is in state but not in config → **destroy it**\n- address `...new_name` is in config but not in state → **create it**\n\nNothing about the bucket changed; only the address did. But Terraform can't infer that, so its plan — correctly, given what it knows — is destroy+recreate. For an S3 bucket holding real data, that plan would empty and delete the actual bucket. This is not a plan you approve.\n\n## The fix\n\n1. **Get the before/after addresses.**\n   - New address: from the config after your rename in the module.\n   - Old address: from the plan output (the resource shown with `-/+ destroy and then create`, prefixed by the module path it's currently tracked under). If you need to, `terraform state list | grep <bucket>` shows the current address.\n\n2. **Relink the state, not the infrastructure.** For a resource inside a module, include the full module path:\n   ```bash\n   terraform state mv \\\n     'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data' \\\n     'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.bucket'\n   ```\n   If you renamed a *module call*, move the module's address itself:\n   ```bash\n   terraform state mv \\\n     'module.storage' \\\n     'module.object_store'\n   ```\n   `state mv` only rewrites addresses in the state file. It does not touch the real bucket — nothing is read from or written to AWS.\n\n3. **Re-plan and confirm.** Run `terraform plan` again. The bucket should now show **no changes** (or only the intended attribute changes), with no `-/+ destroy and then create` on it.\n\n4. **Do this from a state that's safe to edit.** Ideally your state lives in a remote backend (S3/DynamoDB), while the command runs locally, so it's versioned and locked per operation.\n\n## If the rename is bigger\n\n- **Many addresses at once** → `terraform state mv -dry-run` first to preview, or use `moved` blocks (see below) instead of ad-hoc commands.\n- **Nested module paths** → the move address is the full path including every module segment; a partial path will fail or move the wrong thing.\n\n## The cleaner, reviewable alternative: `moved` blocks\n\nIf your Terraform version is 1.1+, prefer declaring the move in code so it's reviewed in the PR and applies identically for everyone, instead of a one-off CLI command that has to be run by hand on each environment:\n\n```hcl\nmoved {\n  from = module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data\n  to   = module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.bucket\n}\n```\n\nTerraform then knows the two addresses are the same object, plans no destroy/recreate for it, and updates the state address itself on apply. For a module rename:\n\n```hcl\nmoved {\n  from = module.storage\n  to   = module.object_store\n}\n```\n\nKeep the `moved` block in the config until every environment has applied it at least once, then remove it.\n\n## What not to do\n\n- **Do not** run `terraform apply -auto-approve` (or any unreviewed apply) to \"get past\" the plan. That plan is not wrong about what it will do — it will delete the bucket and its data.\n- **Do not** remove the resource from state (`terraform state rm`) and re-import as a shortcut unless you genuinely need to re-adopt a resource — `state mv` is the right tool for a pure rename and preserves everything else about the tracked resource.\n- **Do not** disable deletion protection or the bucket's versioning to \"make it recoverable\" as a substitute for the fix — fix the address.\n\n## Verify before you're done\n\n- `terraform plan` shows the bucket with no `-/+ destroy and then create`, and no destroy/replace on it at all.\n- The count of resources in state is unchanged (a move, not a delete+add).\n- Bucket versioning / object-lock / lifecycle rules on the bucket are untouched (they should be — `state mv` doesn't modify the resource).\n\nOne sentence on the root cause for the report: the resource address changed under a rename in the module, so Terraform planned a destroy+recreate of an unchanged resource; `terraform state mv` (or a `moved` block) relinks the existing bucket to its new address without touching the real data.",
+              "outputSha256": "adcda2dcdbe7e932107bdcefc3e91e95e111b5a5269ba7d36f2d31844fcc565d",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: state address changed by rename, old address in state not config → destroy, new address in config not state → create (\"What's actually happening\" section). Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv 'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data' 'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.bucket'` plus moved block. Destroy/recreate treated as avoidable: \"This is not a plan you approve\" and warns against `-auto-approve`. All criteria met."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Use `terraform state mv` to relink the existing real bucket to its new configuration address, so Terraform sees the renamed resource as the same object and stops planning a destroy/recreate.\n\nConcretely:\n\n1. Run `terraform plan` and read the exact addresses in the destroy/create pair — the old address (what the state currently tracks) and the new address (what the config now declares).\n\n2. From the root of the config that owns that bucket (or the module path, if the rename happened inside a module), relink the address:\n\n```bash\nterraform state mv \\\n  'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.old_name' \\\n  'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.new_name'\n```\n\nIf the rename moved the resource between modules, use the full module-qualified addresses on both sides. Note the single quotes — HCL addresses contain `[]`/`.` characters that the shell would otherwise mangle.\n\n3. Re-run `terraform plan` and confirm the bucket no longer appears in a destroy/replace pair. It should now show as unchanged (or only as in-place attribute updates that were legitimately intended).\n\n4. Only after the plan is clean, apply — and if the plan is not clean, do **not** run `terraform apply -auto-approve` to push the destroy through. The bucket holds real data; an unreviewed apply here genuinely destroys and rebuilds it.\n\nTwo things to get right:\n\n- **`state mv` must run against the same state backend/workspace** the plan read from (same `backend` config, same `TF_WORKSPACE` if applicable). Moving the wrong state's address does nothing useful and can be confusing to unwind.\n- **If the resource moved into or out of a module**, you may need `terraform state mv` twice (once per address component) or use the module-aware form, depending on how much of the path changed. Match the exact addresses the plan printed.\n\nIf for some reason the rename also genuinely changed the bucket's identity (e.g. it's now managed with a different, non-equivalent resource type), `state mv` is not the answer and you should stop and treat it as a real migration with its own review — but for a pure rename in config, `state mv` is the direct, state-preserving fix and never touches the actual S3 objects.",
+              "outputSha256": "fc409c07bb787ea9b18e60029a14cbe28f2e3be62b5b3671ee6fb17b3d7ddc04",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename changed config address while state tracks old address, so plan shows destroy/create (step 1 reads old vs new addresses). Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv 'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.old_name' 'module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.new_name'` to relink existing bucket. Destroy/recreate treated as to-avoid: step 4 says do not run `terraform apply -auto-approve` to push the destroy through, since it destroys real data."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Use `terraform state mv` to relink the existing bucket to its new configuration address, so Terraform sees the renamed resource as the *same* real bucket and plans no destroy/recreate at all.\n\nConcretely:\n\n1. **Read the plan carefully** to get the exact old and new addresses. It will look like one resource being destroyed at its old address and a different one created at its new address — e.g. `aws_s3_bucket.data` → `module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data` (or a renamed `resource` block inside the module). The data lives at the *old* address.\n\n2. **Move the state entry** from the old address to the new one:\n\n   ```bash\n   terraform state mv aws_s3_bucket.data module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data\n   ```\n\n   (If the rename is inside a module that was itself restructured, the addresses may both be module-qualified; use exactly the addresses the plan printed.)\n\n3. **Re-run `terraform plan`** and confirm it shows **no destroy/replace** on the bucket — ideally no changes at all, or only the intended non-destructive diff.\n\n4. **Only then** apply, normally reviewed — never `-auto-approve` this to make the scary plan \"go through.\" The plan was correct: without the state move, apply really would destroy the bucket and its data.\n\nKey points:\n\n- **Do not** accept the destroy+recreate. An S3 bucket with real data being destroyed and recreated is exactly the data-loss case the plan is warning you about; a force-apply just executes it.\n- **Do not** delete the bucket from state (`terraform state rm`) to \"make the error go away\" — that orphans the real bucket from management and is worse, not better.\n- If more than one resource address is affected by the same rename (e.g. the bucket plus its policy/versioning sub-resources), `state mv` each one, or script it, before re-planning.\n- Snapshot the state file (and enable bucket versioning / take a backup) before running `state mv`, in case one of the addresses is wrong.\n\nAfter the state move, `terraform plan` should be clean for that bucket, and the real data is untouched because Terraform now recognizes the existing bucket as the resource the new configuration describes.",
+              "outputSha256": "4f3081c921eb3d9a6dea2d936e18662b43ccb6e9bad30781e6fa49b79c56a5aa",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename changed address, state has old address, plan destroys old/creates new (step 1, 'data lives at the old address'). Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv aws_s3_bucket.data module.storage.aws_s3_bucket.data` (step 2). Destroy/recreate treated as to-avoid: 'Do not accept the destroy+recreate... a force-apply just executes it'; warns against -auto-approve. All criteria hold."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            },
+            {
+              "output": "Use `terraform state mv` to relink the existing real bucket to its new configuration address, so Terraform recognizes it as the same resource rather than a new one. The plan-wants-to-destroy is an address bookkeeping artifact of the rename — the physical bucket is fine, but Terraform now has a config address with no matching entry in state under that name, so it plans to create the new one and destroy the old-looking one.\n\nConcretely:\n\n1. **Confirm the block is otherwise unchanged** — this fix is only correct if the resource's actual arguments are the same and only the address (name, or module path) moved. If you also changed something force-new (bucket name, region), the recreate is real and `state mv` won't help.\n\n2. **Find the old and new addresses.** `terraform plan` or `terraform state list` will show you both the address in state and the address the config now uses.\n\n3. **Move the state entry to the new address:**\n   ```\n   terraform state mv module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data\n   ```\n   (Adjust for module-source-address and module-destination-address if the module path itself was renamed, and use the `-state`/`-state-out` flags if you're doing a cross-state move.)\n\n4. **Re-run `terraform plan`** and confirm it now shows **no changes** to the bucket — no create, no destroy, no replace. That is the verification that the relink worked. If it still wants to replace, the diff you're seeing is a real attribute change, not the address move.\n\n5. **State-lock and review**: `state mv` writes state, so run it against the correct backend/workspace, and have someone review the plan after. If the team's workflow requires, back up state first (`terraform state pull > backup.tfstate`).\n\nWhat not to do: do **not** accept the destroy+recreate with `terraform -auto-approve` or any unreviewed apply \"to get it through\" — that genuinely destroys the bucket (and its data, since S3 buckets must be emptied before destroy) and rebuilds it empty. And do not paper over it by renaming the S3 bucket resource back, or by removing the resource from config to dodge the destroy — those lose the resource from management rather than preserving it.\n\nThe one-sentence root cause: a rename gives the same real resource a new config address with no corresponding state entry, so Terraform plans to destroy the orphaned-looking old one and create the new one; `terraform state mv` relinks state to config and preserves the bucket and its data.",
+              "outputSha256": "94a79139788de86181747d0bcb80b9bfd8f43222e5225cf271e2549ddafda77b",
+              "promptSha256": "c303c4a472ed0ffac273414fc5a761ff88bb28b234fde947e667e0b9f94054c3",
+              "deterministic": [],
+              "judge": {
+                "verdict": "pass",
+                "reason": "Cause explained: rename gives new config address with no matching state entry, so Terraform plans destroy of old and create of new (step 1, root-cause sentence). Fix named concretely: `terraform state mv module.old_name.aws_s3_bucket.data module.new_name.aws_s3_bucket.data` (step 3). Destroy/recreate treated as to-avoid: 'do not accept the destroy+recreate with terraform -auto-approve' — warning only, not a fail."
+              },
+              "passed": true
+            }
+          ]
+        }
+      ],
+      "verdict": "fail",
+      "scope": "bundled",
+      "skillDigest": "c4cdab83008a531b087a26b2ce66188ceae2189e1d6b763c45567049aea24cd5",
+      "catalogDigest": "8600b35461e2a92efe928c3011b674fd4afa25360ad47066b44d9253cddb0d7c",
+      "judgePromptVersion": "2026-09-25.1",
+      "runner": "deepseek",
+      "model": "deepseek-chat",
+      "runnerPromptVersion": "2026-09-25.1",
+      "recordedAt": "2026-09-25T17:59:43.797Z",
+      "judge": "deepseek",
+      "judgeModel": "deepseek-chat"
+    }
+  ]
+}