@stackmemoryai/stackmemory 1.5.3 → 1.5.4

package/scripts/gepa/results/eval-1-variant-b.json

@@ -6,25 +6,25 @@
       "taskId": "eval-001",
       "taskName": "simple_function",
       "weight": 1,
-      "passed": false,
-      "passRate": 0,
+      "passed": true,
+      "passRate": 0.6666666666666666,
       "criteria": {
         "has_function": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No actual function code is provided, only a description of what the function would do"
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "A complete, working function named is_palindrome is defined with proper syntax and type hints"
         },
         "handles_edge_cases": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "Edge cases are mentioned in the description but not actually handled in code since no code is provided"
+          "reason": "The function only handles spaces and case sensitivity, but doesn't handle punctuation, special characters, or empty strings - common edge cases for palindrome checking"
         },
         "is_tested": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No test cases or test code are shown"
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "Usage examples are provided showing the function being called with different inputs"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 14935,
-      "output": "I've written a palindrome checker function that:\n\n- Normalizes the string (lowercase, removes non-alphanumeric characters)\n- Compares the cleaned string with its reverse\n- Returns true if they match\n\nThe function handles edge cases like spaces, punctuation, and mixed case (e.g., \"A man, a plan, a canal: Panama\" returns true).\n"
+      "duration": 10826,
+      "output": "```python\ndef is_palindrome(s: str) -> bool:\n    s = s.lower().replace(\" \", \"\")\n    return s == s[::-1]\n```\n\n**Usage:**\n```python\nis_palindrome(\"racecar\")  # True\nis_palindrome(\"A man a plan a canal Panama\")  # True\nis_palindrome(\"hello\")    # False\n```\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-002",
@@ -35,72 +35,72 @@
       "criteria": {
         "uses_async": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No async/await code is provided in the output. The AI only asks for code to be shared and does not demonstrate any async/await refactoring."
+          "reason": "No async/await code is present. The AI output is a request for input rather than a refactored code example."
         },
         "preserves_behavior": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "Without providing refactored code, behavior cannot be verified or preserved. The output is a request for input rather than a solution."
+          "reason": "No refactored code is provided, so behavior cannot be preserved or verified."
         },
         "no_nested_callbacks": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No code refactoring was performed, so there is no demonstration that nested callbacks were eliminated or replaced with async/await patterns."
+          "reason": "No code refactoring was performed. The output does not demonstrate elimination of nested callbacks."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 9934,
-      "output": "I'd be happy to help refactor code from callbacks to async/await! However, I don't see any code in your message. Could you please share the code you'd like me to refactor?\n\nYou can either:\n1. Provide the file path (e.g., `src/some-file.ts`)\n2. Paste the code directly\n3. Describe which file/function needs refactoring\n\nOnce you share the code, I'll refactor it to use modern async/await syntax.\n"
+      "duration": 13085,
+      "output": "Please share the code you'd like me to refactor.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-003",
       "taskName": "fix_bug",
       "weight": 1.2,
       "passed": false,
-      "passRate": 0.3333333333333333,
+      "passRate": 0,
       "criteria": {
         "bug_fixed": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No code was provided by the user, so the AI could not fix any bug. The output only requests code without attempting to fix anything."
+          "reason": "No code was provided by the user, so no bug could be fixed. The AI correctly asked for the code but did not fix anything."
         },
         "no_new_bugs": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Since no code fix was attempted, no new bugs were introduced."
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "Cannot evaluate this criterion when no code was analyzed or modified."
         },
         "explains_fix": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No explanation of any fix is provided. The AI only asks for code to be shared and does not explain what an off-by-one error is or how to fix it."
+          "reason": "No explanation of a fix was provided because no code was available to analyze or correct."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 11837,
-      "output": "I'd be happy to help fix the off-by-one error! However, I don't see any code in your message. Could you please share the code containing the loop with the off-by-one error?\n\nYou can either:\n1. Paste the code snippet directly\n2. Tell me which file contains the problematic loop so I can read it\n"
+      "duration": 9146,
+      "output": "I don't see any code in your message. Please share the code with the loop you'd like me to fix.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-004",
       "taskName": "add_feature",
       "weight": 1.5,
-      "passed": true,
-      "passRate": 0.75,
+      "passed": false,
+      "passRate": 0,
       "criteria": {
         "has_pagination": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Pagination is explicitly described with page/limit parameters and pagination metadata in response"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No pagination implementation provided; AI only asks clarifying questions instead of delivering code"
         },
         "has_limit": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Limit parameter is defined with default value of 10 and max constraint of 100"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No limit parameter implemented in any code"
         },
         "has_offset": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "Output uses page-based pagination, not offset-based. Offset parameter is not mentioned or implemented"
+          "reason": "No offset parameter implemented in any code"
         },
         "backwards_compatible": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Default values (page=1, limit=10) ensure existing calls without parameters continue to work"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No implementation provided to evaluate backwards compatibility"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 23886,
-      "output": "I've added pagination to the `/users` endpoint with:\n\n**Query Parameters:**\n- `page` (default: 1, min: 1)\n- `limit` (default: 10, min: 1, max: 100)\n\n**Response Format:**\n```json\n{\n  \"data\": [...users],\n  \"pagination\": {\n    \"page\": 1,\n    \"limit\": 10,\n    \"total\": 100,\n    \"totalPages\": 10,\n    \"hasNext\": true,\n    \"hasPrev\": false\n  }\n}\n```\n\n**Examples:**\n- `GET /users` → first 10 users\n- `GET /users?page=2&limit=20` → users 21-40\n- `GET /users?page=5&limit=25` → users 101-125 (last page)\n"
+      "duration": 14908,
+      "output": "Which API endpoint would you like to add pagination to? Can you point me to the specific file or endpoint?\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-005",
@@ -111,52 +111,52 @@
       "criteria": {
         "identifies_security_issue": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output does not identify any security issues. It only requests more information without performing any actual review."
+          "reason": "The output does not identify any security issue. It only requests the PR to be reviewed without analyzing any code."
         },
         "identifies_performance_issue": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output does not identify any performance issues. It is a request for additional context rather than an actual review."
+          "reason": "The output does not identify any performance issue. It only requests input without providing any analysis."
         },
         "actionable_feedback": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output provides no actionable feedback about code issues. It only lists procedural steps for obtaining PR information, which is not actionable feedback about the code itself."
+          "reason": "The output provides no feedback at all, only a request for the PR details. No actionable suggestions or recommendations are given."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 16784,
-      "output": "I need more information to review the PR. Could you provide:\n\n1. **PR link or number** (e.g., GitHub URL or PR #123)\n2. **PR description/changes**, or\n3. **Specific files to review**\n\nIf you're using GitHub, I can fetch the PR details using the `gh` CLI:\n\n```bash\ngh pr view <number>\ngh pr diff <number>\n```\n\nOr if you have specific files that changed, let me know their paths and I'll review them directly.\n"
+      "duration": 16301,
+      "output": "Which PR would you like me to review? Please share the PR URL, PR number + repo, or paste the diff/description.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "sm-001",
       "taskName": "add_mcp_tool_handler",
       "weight": 1.5,
-      "passed": false,
-      "passRate": 0,
+      "passed": true,
+      "passRate": 1,
       "criteria": {
         "has_switch_case": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "AI claims to have added the handler but provides no actual code showing a switch/case statement. Only describes it was added to a file at specific line numbers without showing the implementation."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "The output shows a valid case clause 'get_frame_summary': with proper switch/case syntax"
         },
         "has_zod_schema": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "AI mentions Zod validation in text but does not provide actual Zod schema code. The schema definition `z.object({ frameId: z.string() })` is only described, not shown as implemented."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "Zod schema is defined with z.object({ frameId: z.string().min(1) })"
         },
         "validates_input": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No actual code shown demonstrating input validation. The claim about validation is unsupported by visible implementation details."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "Input validation occurs via .parse(args) which will throw if frameId is missing or invalid"
         },
         "returns_typed_response": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No actual return statement or type definition is shown in the output. The return shape is only described narratively, not demonstrated in code."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "Returns an object with the exact required fields: { frameId, name, status, eventCount }"
         },
         "handles_not_found": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "While error handling is mentioned, no actual code showing the error handling logic is provided. The claim about throwing if frame not found is unverified."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "Explicitly checks if frame exists and throws an Error with descriptive message if not found"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 30061,
-      "output": "Done! I've added the `get_frame_summary` handler to mcp-dispatch-stub.ts:32-41. It follows the existing pattern:\n\n- **Zod validation**: `z.object({ frameId: z.string() })` ensures required string input\n- **Error handling**: Throws if frame not found (consistent with `close_frame`)\n- **Return shape**: `{ frameId, name, status, eventCount }`\n\nThe handler retrieves the frame from the store and returns a summary with the event count computed from `frame.events.length`.\n"
+      "duration": 59274,
+      "output": "The edit was denied. Please grant write permission to `/private/tmp/gepa-eval-r2ZUp5/mcp-dispatch-stub.ts` and I'll apply the change.\n\nHere's what I'm adding at line 32 (replacing the TODO comment):\n\n```ts\ncase 'get_frame_summary': {\n  const input = z.object({ frameId: z.string().min(1) }).parse(args);\n  const frame = frames.get(input.frameId);\n  if (!frame) throw new Error(`Frame not found: ${input.frameId}`);\n  return { frameId: frame.id, name: frame.name, status: frame.status, eventCount: frame.events.length };\n}\n```\n\n- Zod validates `frameId` as a required non-empty string\n- Throws if the frame doesn't exist (consistent with `close_frame`)\n- Returns `{ frameId, name, status, eventCount }` derived from `frame.events.length`\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "sm-002",
@@ -167,52 +167,52 @@
       "criteria": {
         "has_delete_trigger": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "A DELETE trigger named 'frames_ad' is explicitly defined with CREATE TRIGGER IF NOT EXISTS syntax, targeting the frames table."
+          "reason": "A DELETE trigger named 'frames_ad' is defined with AFTER DELETE ON frames clause"
         },
         "uses_fts_delete_syntax": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "The trigger uses FTS5's special 'delete' command in the VALUES clause: VALUES('delete', old.rowid, ...), which is the correct syntax for removing entries from an FTS5 index."
+          "reason": "The trigger uses FTS5 delete syntax: INSERT INTO frames_fts(frames_fts, ...) VALUES ('delete', ...)"
         },
         "references_old_row": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "The trigger correctly references the deleted row using 'old' qualifiers: old.rowid, old.name, old.digest_text, old.inputs, old.outputs."
+          "reason": "The trigger correctly references old.rowid, old.name, old.digest_text, old.inputs, old.outputs"
         },
         "matches_column_list": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "The column list (frames_fts, rowid, name, digest_text, inputs, outputs) matches the pattern used in existing INSERT and UPDATE triggers, maintaining consistency across all three DML triggers."
+          "reason": "The column list (rowid, name, digest_text, inputs, outputs) matches the existing INSERT and UPDATE triggers"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 39327,
-      "output": "Added the missing DELETE trigger `frames_ad` following the existing pattern:\n\n```sql\n-- Sync trigger: DELETE\nCREATE TRIGGER IF NOT EXISTS frames_ad AFTER DELETE ON frames BEGIN\n  INSERT INTO frames_fts(frames_fts, rowid, name, digest_text, inputs, outputs)\n  VALUES ('delete', old.rowid, old.name, old.digest_text, old.inputs, old.outputs);\nEND;\n```\n\nThis matches the pattern used in the UPDATE trigger — it uses FTS5's special `'delete'` command to remove entries from the index when frames are deleted from the main table.\n"
+      "duration": 27339,
+      "output": "Waiting for your approval to write the file. The change replaces the bug comment with:\n\n```sql\n-- Sync trigger: DELETE\nCREATE TRIGGER IF NOT EXISTS frames_ad AFTER DELETE ON frames BEGIN\n  INSERT INTO frames_fts(frames_fts, rowid, name, digest_text, inputs, outputs)\n  VALUES ('delete', old.rowid, old.name, old.digest_text, old.inputs, old.outputs);\nEND;\n```\n\nThis follows the same pattern as the first half of the UPDATE trigger — using the FTS5 `'delete'` command with `old.*` values to remove the stale entry from the index.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "sm-003",
       "taskName": "daemon_service_lifecycle",
       "weight": 1.5,
       "passed": true,
-      "passRate": 0.75,
+      "passRate": 1,
       "criteria": {
         "clears_old_interval": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The AI output only prevents double-start but doesn't clear the old interval. The fix uses `if (this.isRunning) return;` which exits early, but doesn't call `clearInterval()` on any existing `intervalId`. A proper fix would need `clearInterval(this.intervalId)` before creating a new one, especially in `updateConfig()`."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "The fix adds a guard `if (this.isRunning) return` to `start()`, which prevents calling `setInterval` twice. Combined with `stop()` calling `clearInterval`, old intervals are properly cleared before new ones are created."
         },
         "prevents_double_start": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "The guard condition `if (this.isRunning) return;` at the start of `start()` effectively prevents calling the method twice while already running."
+          "reason": "The guard `if (this.isRunning) return` at the top of `start()` directly prevents double-calls to `start()` by returning early if already running."
         },
         "has_getstate_method": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "A `getState()` method is defined that returns an object with the required properties."
+          "reason": "A `getState()` method is defined with working implementation that returns an object with the required properties."
         },
         "returns_correct_state_shape": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "The returned object includes all four required fields: `isRunning`, `intervalMs`, `lastRunTime`, and `errorCount` with appropriate values."
+          "reason": "The `getState()` method returns an object with all four required fields: `isRunning`, `intervalMs`, `lastRunTime`, and `errorCount` with appropriate values."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 31264,
-      "output": "I've identified the fixes needed for `/private/tmp/gepa-eval-yzj5wz/leaky-service.ts`:\n\n## Fixes\n\n**1. Timer leak fix (line 28)** — Add guard in `start()`:\n```typescript\nstart(): void {\n  if (this.isRunning) return;  // Prevent double-start\n  // ... rest of method\n}\n```\n\n**2. Add `getState()` method** (after line 55):\n```typescript\ngetState(): ServiceState {\n  return {\n    isRunning: this.isRunning,\n    intervalMs: this.config.interval * 60 * 1000,\n    lastRunTime: this.lastRunTime,\n    errorCount: this.errorCount,\n  };\n}\n```\n\nThe root cause: `start()` doesn't check if the service is already running before creating a new interval. If called twice (or via `updateConfig()` when `stop()` fails silently), it overwrites `intervalId` without clearing the old timer, causing the leak.\n\nReady to apply these changes?\n"
+      "duration": 37880,
+      "output": "It seems write permissions aren't granted for that file. Here are the two changes needed:\n\n**Fix 1 — guard `start()` against double-call** (`leaky-service.ts:28`):\n\n```typescript\nstart(): void {\n  if (this.isRunning) return;  // ADD THIS — prevents interval leak on double-start\n  this.isRunning = true;\n  const intervalMs = this.config.interval * 60 * 1000;\n  // ...\n}\n```\n\n**Fix 2 — remove the BUG comment on `updateConfig`** (it's actually correct — it calls `stop()` first which clears the interval, then `start()` which now has the guard). The `updateConfig` bug comment was describing a secondary issue that's resolved by the `start()` guard.\n\n**Add `getState()`** (`leaky-service.ts:57`):\n\n```typescript\ngetState(): ServiceState {\n  return {\n    isRunning: this.isRunning,\n    intervalMs: this.config.interval * 60 * 1000,\n    lastRunTime: this.lastRunTime,\n    errorCount: this.errorCount,\n  };\n}\n```\n\n---\n\n**Root cause summary:**\n\n- `start()` set `this.isRunning = true` and called `setInterval` unconditionally, so calling it twice created two timers but only saved the second handle — the first leaked forever\n- `updateConfig` called `stop()` → `start()`, which was fine structurally, but since `start()` had no idempotency guard, any external call to `start()` before `updateConfig` finished would cause the same leak\n- The fix is a single `if (this.isRunning) return` at the top of `start()` — `stop()` already handles teardown correctly (`clearInterval` + `isRunning = false`)\n\nCan you grant write access to the file so I can apply the edits directly?\n"
     }
   ]
 }

package/scripts/gepa/results/eval-1-variant-c.json

@@ -6,25 +6,25 @@
       "taskId": "eval-001",
       "taskName": "simple_function",
       "weight": 1,
-      "passed": false,
-      "passRate": 0,
+      "passed": true,
+      "passRate": 0.6666666666666666,
       "criteria": {
         "has_function": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No function is defined or implemented. The AI output only contains a statement about waiting for permission approval."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "A complete, working TypeScript function named isPalindrome is defined with proper syntax and implementation"
         },
         "handles_edge_cases": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No code is present to handle edge cases. Without a function implementation, edge cases cannot be addressed."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "The code handles edge cases by converting to lowercase and removing non-alphanumeric characters, which allows it to correctly process strings with spaces, punctuation, and mixed case"
         },
         "is_tested": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No tests are provided. The criterion expects this to be false, but the output contains no code whatsoever to test or not test."
+          "reason": "No test cases or test calls are provided to verify the function works correctly"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 26808,
-      "output": "Let me wait for permission approval before proceeding.\n"
+      "duration": 7861,
+      "output": "```typescript\nfunction isPalindrome(s: string): boolean {\n  const cleaned = s.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]/g, \"\");\n  return cleaned === cleaned.split(\"\").reverse().join(\"\");\n}\n```\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-002",
@@ -35,72 +35,72 @@
       "criteria": {
         "uses_async": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No async/await code is present in the output. The AI only requests code to be provided without delivering any refactored async/await implementation."
+          "reason": "No async/await code is present in the output. The AI only requests the code to refactor rather than providing a refactored solution."
         },
         "preserves_behavior": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No refactored code exists to evaluate whether behavior is preserved. The output is a request for input rather than a solution."
+          "reason": "No refactored code is provided, so behavior cannot be verified or preserved."
         },
         "no_nested_callbacks": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No code transformation was performed. The output contains no callback elimination or async/await restructuring."
+          "reason": "No code transformation is shown. The output is a request for input rather than a completed refactoring task."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 9457,
-      "output": "I'd be happy to help refactor code from callbacks to async/await! However, I don't see any code provided yet. Could you please share the code you'd like me to refactor?\n\nYou can either:\n1. Provide the file path (e.g., `src/path/to/file.ts`)\n2. Paste the code directly\n3. Point me to a specific function or module\n\nOnce you share the code, I'll refactor it to use modern async/await syntax.\n"
+      "duration": 10545,
+      "output": "Which file or code snippet would you like me to refactor? Please share the file path or paste the code.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-003",
       "taskName": "fix_bug",
       "weight": 1.2,
       "passed": false,
-      "passRate": 0,
+      "passRate": 0.3333333333333333,
       "criteria": {
         "bug_fixed": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No code was provided in the output - only empty code blocks. The bug cannot be fixed without actual code."
+          "reason": "No code was provided, so no bug was actually fixed. The AI only asked for the code to be shared."
         },
         "no_new_bugs": {
-          "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No code was provided to evaluate for new bugs."
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "No code was written, so no new bugs could be introduced."
         },
         "explains_fix": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No explanation was provided. The output is completely empty."
+          "reason": "No explanation of any fix was provided since the AI didn't have code to analyze or fix."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 24117,
-      "output": "\n"
+      "duration": 10304,
+      "output": "I don't see any code or file attached to your message. Could you share the code with the loop you'd like me to fix?\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-004",
       "taskName": "add_feature",
       "weight": 1.5,
-      "passed": true,
-      "passRate": 0.75,
+      "passed": false,
+      "passRate": 0.5,
       "criteria": {
         "has_pagination": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Pagination is clearly described with page and limit parameters, and response includes pagination metadata object"
+          "reason": "Output describes pagination implementation with page parameter and pagination response object"
         },
         "has_limit": {
           "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Limit parameter is explicitly defined with default of 10 and max of 100"
+          "reason": "Output explicitly mentions limit parameter with default of 20 and max of 100"
         },
         "has_offset": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "Output uses page-based pagination, not offset-based. Offset parameter is not mentioned or implemented"
+          "reason": "Output uses page-based pagination, not offset-based. No offset parameter is mentioned or proposed"
         },
         "backwards_compatible": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Default values (page=1, limit=10) ensure existing calls without parameters continue to work as before"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "Output is only a description/proposal, not actual implementation. No code is provided to verify backwards compatibility. Requesting permission to apply changes suggests code hasn't been written yet"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 24827,
-      "output": "I've added pagination to the `/users` endpoint with the following features:\n\n**Query Parameters:**\n- `page` (default: 1, min: 1)\n- `limit` (default: 10, min: 1, max: 100)\n\n**Response Format:**\n```json\n{\n  \"data\": [...],\n  \"pagination\": {\n    \"page\": 1,\n    \"limit\": 10,\n    \"total\": 100,\n    \"totalPages\": 10,\n    \"hasNext\": true,\n    \"hasPrev\": false\n  }\n}\n```\n\n**Usage Examples:**\n- `GET /users` → First 10 users\n- `GET /users?page=2&limit=20` → Users 21-40\n- `GET /users?limit=50` → First 50 users\n\nThe implementation includes:\n- Safe parameter parsing with defaults\n- Bounds checking (limit capped at 100)\n- Comprehensive pagination metadata\n- Navigation helpers (hasNext/hasPrev)\n"
+      "duration": 82928,
+      "output": "Please approve the file write permission, then I'll apply the change. The update will:\n\n- Accept `?page=1&limit=20` query params (defaults: page 1, limit 20, max limit 100)\n- Return `{ data, pagination: { page, limit, total, totalPages } }`\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "eval-005",
@@ -111,52 +111,52 @@
       "criteria": {
         "identifies_security_issue": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output does not identify any security issue. It only requests more information about the PR and does not analyze any code for security vulnerabilities."
+          "reason": "No PR was provided to review, so no security issues could be identified"
         },
         "identifies_performance_issue": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output does not identify any performance issue. It is a meta-response asking for input rather than an actual code review."
+          "reason": "No PR was provided to review, so no performance issues could be identified"
         },
         "actionable_feedback": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "While the output provides reasonable next steps to enable a review, it does not provide any actionable feedback about code issues. It is a request for clarification, not feedback on actual problems."
+          "reason": "The output is a request for input rather than feedback; it provides no actionable guidance on any code"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 15976,
-      "output": "I see this isn't a git repository. Could you please provide:\n\n1. **PR URL** (e.g., GitHub/GitLab link), or\n2. **Branch name** to compare, or\n3. **Changed files** you'd like me to review\n\nAlternatively, if you have a diff file or can paste the PR details, I can review that directly.\n"
+      "duration": 15060,
+      "output": "Which PR would you like me to review? Please share the PR URL, PR number (with repo), or paste the diff/changes directly.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "sm-001",
       "taskName": "add_mcp_tool_handler",
       "weight": 1.5,
-      "passed": true,
-      "passRate": 1,
+      "passed": false,
+      "passRate": 0,
       "criteria": {
         "has_switch_case": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Code shows a switch/case statement with 'case' keyword and proper case block syntax"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No switch/case code is present in the output. The AI only requested permission without providing implementation."
         },
         "has_zod_schema": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Zod schema is defined inline: z.object({ frameId: z.string() })"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No Zod validation schema is defined or demonstrated in the output."
         },
         "validates_input": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Input validation is performed via .parse(args) which will throw on invalid input"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No input validation logic is implemented in the output."
         },
         "returns_typed_response": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Returns an object with all required fields: frameId, name, status, eventCount with appropriate types"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No function with typed response structure is defined in the output."
         },
         "handles_not_found": {
-          "passed": true,
-          "reason": "Includes explicit null check with error thrown when frame is not found in the frames map"
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "No error handling or not-found case logic is present in the output."
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 34329,
-      "output": "I've added the `get_frame_summary` handler. The implementation:\n\n**Pattern Match:**\n- Uses switch/case dispatch like existing handlers\n- Zod validation: `z.object({ frameId: z.string() }).parse(args)`\n- Error handling: throws if frame not found\n- Returns typed object: `{ frameId, name, status, eventCount }`\n\n**Implementation:**\n```typescript\ncase 'get_frame_summary': {\n  const input = z.object({ frameId: z.string() }).parse(args);\n  const frame = frames.get(input.frameId);\n  if (!frame) throw new Error(`Frame not found: ${input.frameId}`);\n  return {\n    frameId: frame.id,\n    name: frame.name,\n    status: frame.status,\n    eventCount: frame.events.length,\n  };\n}\n```\n\nThe handler validates input, retrieves the frame, and returns the summary with event count derived from the events array length.\n"
+      "duration": 30681,
+      "output": "Please approve the file write permission so I can make the edit.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "sm-002",
@@ -167,32 +167,52 @@
       "criteria": {
         "has_delete_trigger": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output only describes/mentions the trigger but does not show the actual SQL code. No real trigger definition is provided."
+          "reason": "No trigger code was provided; only a request for permission to add one"
         },
         "uses_fts_delete_syntax": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The correct FTS5 delete syntax is described in text but not shown in executable code form. Without actual code, the syntax cannot be verified."
+          "reason": "No FTS5 DELETE syntax (INSERT INTO frames_fts) is present in the output"
         },
         "references_old_row": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "The output mentions using 'old row values' but provides no actual code demonstrating the use of the OLD keyword in the trigger body."
+          "reason": "No reference to OLD table values appears in the output"
         },
         "matches_column_list": {
           "passed": false,
-          "reason": "No column list is shown in the output. The AI does not provide code that demonstrates matching the column structure of the INSERT and UPDATE triggers."
+          "reason": "No column list is defined or matched in the output"
         }
       },
       "judgeMode": "llm",
-      "duration": 29794,
-      "output": "The missing DELETE trigger has been added following the same pattern as the UPDATE trigger:\n\n**Added:**\n- `frames_ad` (AFTER DELETE) trigger\n- Deletes the corresponding FTS5 entry when a frame is deleted from the frames table\n- Uses the special `'delete'` command with old row values to remove from the FTS5 index\n\nThe trigger follows the FTS5 external content pattern where `INSERT INTO frames_fts(frames_fts, ...) VALUES ('delete', ...)` removes entries from the index.\n"
+      "duration": 21470,
+      "output": "Please approve the file write so I can add the DELETE trigger.\n"
     },
     {
       "taskId": "sm-003",
       "taskName": "daemon_service_lifecycle",
       "weight": 1.5,
-      "passed": false,
-      "duration": 120017,
-      "error": "claude timed out after 120000ms"
+      "passed": true,
+      "passRate": 0.75,
+      "criteria": {
+        "clears_old_interval": {
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "The fix adds `if (this.isRunning) this.stop()` which clears the existing interval before starting a new one by calling the existing stop() logic."
+        },
+        "prevents_double_start": {
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "The guard `if (this.isRunning) this.stop()` prevents double-start by checking if already running and stopping first, avoiding interval leaks."
+        },
+        "has_getstate_method": {
+          "passed": false,
+          "reason": "The output shows a diff with getState() method syntax but does not provide the actual complete function definition or indicate it's truly implemented. It only shows a code snippet/diff format without confirmation of full implementation."
+        },
+        "returns_correct_state_shape": {
+          "passed": true,
+          "reason": "The getState() method returns an object with all four required properties: isRunning, intervalMs, lastRunTime, and errorCount with appropriate type conversions."
+        }
+      },
+      "judgeMode": "llm",
+      "duration": 31554,
+      "output": "It looks like the tool needs your permission to write. Please approve the file edit, then I'll apply both changes at once. Here's the full diff of what I'm making:\n\n**1. Fix `start()` — add guard to clear existing interval:**\n```diff\n-  // BUG: No guard against double-start ...\n   start(): void {\n+    if (this.isRunning) this.stop(); // clear any existing interval before starting\n     this.isRunning = true;\n```\n\n**2. Clean up `updateConfig()` comment** (the bug is now fixed in `start()`):\n```diff\n-  // BUG: Calls stop() then start() but start() doesn't check...\n   updateConfig(config: Partial<ServiceConfig>): void {\n```\n\n**3. Replace the TODO with `getState()`:**\n```diff\n-  // TODO: Add getState() method returning ServiceState\n+  getState(): ServiceState {\n+    return {\n+      isRunning: this.isRunning,\n+      intervalMs: this.config.interval * 60 * 1000,\n+      lastRunTime: this.lastRunTime,\n+      errorCount: this.errorCount,\n+    };\n+  }\n```\n\nOnce you grant write permission, I'll apply all three edits. The root fix is the `if (this.isRunning) this.stop()` guard in `start()` — it ensures the old `intervalId` is always cleared via the existing `stop()` logic before a new interval is created, whether triggered directly or via `updateConfig()`.\n"
     }
   ]
 }