@techwavedev/agi-agent-kit 1.2.8 → 1.3.5

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13933.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Based on the issue description, I need to create a patch for Django's `ModelChoiceField` class in `django/forms/models.py`. The issue is that `ModelChoiceField` doesn't pass the invalid value to the ValidationError when raising `invalid_choice` error, unlike `ModelMultipleChoiceField` which does include `%(value)s` in its error message.
+
+Let me analyze the issue and create the patch:
+
+1. The `ModelChoiceField.default_error_messages['invalid_choice']` needs to include `%(value)s`
+2. The code that raises the ValidationError needs to pass the `value` parameter
+
+Based on the issue description and the code snippets provided:
+
+```
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -1188,7 +1188,8 @@ class ModelChoiceField(ChoiceField):
+     # This class is a subclass of ChoiceField for purity, but it doesn't
+     # actually use any of ChoiceField's implementation.
+     default_error_messages = {
+-        'invalid_choice': _('Select a valid choice. That choice is not one of'
+-                            ' the available choices.'),
++        'invalid_choice': _('Select a valid choice. %(value)s is not one of'
++                            ' the available choices.'),
+     }
+ 
+@@ -1251,7 +1252,10 @@ class ModelChoiceField(ChoiceField):
+         try:
+             key = self.to_field_name or 'pk'
+             value = self.queryset.get(**{key: value})
+         except (ValueError, TypeError, self.queryset.model.DoesNotExist):
+-            raise ValidationError(self.error_messages['invalid_choice'], code='invalid_choice')
++            raise ValidationError(
++                self.error_messages['invalid_choice'],
++                code='invalid_choice',
++                params={'value': value},
++            )
+         return value
+```
+
+Wait, I need to look at the actual Django source to provide accurate line numbers. Let me provide the patch based on the standard Django codebase structure:
+
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -1186,8 +1186,8 @@ class ModelChoiceField(ChoiceField):
+     # This class is a subclass of ChoiceField for purity, but it doesn't
+     # actually use any of ChoiceField's implementation.
+     default_error_messages = {
+-        'invalid_choice': _('Select a valid choice. That choice is not one of'
+-                            ' the available choices.'),
++        'invalid_choice': _('Select a valid choice. %(value)s is not one of'
++                            ' the available choices.'),
+     }
+     iterator = ModelChoiceIterator
+ 
+@@ -1249,7 +1249,11 @@ class ModelChoiceField(ChoiceField):
+             key = self.to_field_name or 'pk'
+             value = self.queryset.get(**{key: value})
+         except (ValueError, TypeError, self.queryset.model.DoesNotExist):
+-            raise ValidationError(self.error_messages['invalid_choice'], code='invalid_choice')
++            raise ValidationError(
++                self.error_messages['invalid_choice'],
++                code='invalid_choice',
++                params={'value': value},
++            )
+         return value

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13964.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+The Django repository is not in the current directory. This appears to be a different repository. Since the user is asking me to solve a Django issue, I need to work with the Django source code. Based on the issue description and the hint provided, I can generate the patch directly since the fix is clearly described.
+
+The issue is in `django/db/models/base.py` in the `_prepare_related_fields_for_save()` method. The problem is that when checking if the foreign key attribute needs to be updated from the related object, the current code only checks for `None`, but for non-numeric primary keys like `CharField`, an empty string `""` should also be treated as an empty/unset value.
+
+The hint suggests using `field.empty_values` instead of just checking for `None`. Let me provide the patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -933,7 +933,7 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+                     "%s() prohibited to prevent data loss due to unsaved "
+                     "related object '%s'." % (operation_name, field.name)
+                 )
+-            elif getattr(self, field.attname) is None:
++            elif getattr(self, field.attname) in field.empty_values:
+                 # Use pk from related object if it has been saved after
+                 # an assignment.
+                 setattr(self, field.attname, obj.pk)

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14016.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+Based on the issue description, I need to create a patch for Django's Q object implementation. The issue is that applying the `|` operator to a Q object fails when the Q object contains non-pickleable types like `dict_keys`. The regression was introduced in commit `bb0b6e526340e638522e093765e534df4e4393d2`.
+
+Looking at the issue, the problem is that Django's Q object uses `copy.deepcopy()` when combining Q objects with `|` or `&` operators, and `dict_keys` objects cannot be pickled (which is required for deepcopy by default).
+
+The solution is to implement `__deepcopy__` method on the Q class (or its parent class `Node`) to handle this properly by using a deconstruct/reconstruct approach instead of relying on pickle.
+
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase structure and the typical location of Q objects, the fix needs to be in `django/db/models/query_utils.py` for the Q class. The issue is that the `|` operator (which calls `__or__`) uses `copy.deepcopy()` which tries to pickle objects.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -40,7 +40,17 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+     def __init__(self, *args, _connector=None, _negated=False, **kwargs):
+         super().__init__(children=[*args, *sorted(kwargs.items())], connector=_connector, negated=_negated)
+ 
++    def __deepcopy__(self, memo):
++        obj = type(self)()
++        obj.connector = self.connector
++        obj.negated = self.negated
++        obj.children = copy.deepcopy(self.children, memo)
++        return obj
++
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
++        if not(isinstance(other, Q)):
++            raise TypeError(other)
+         if not self:
+             return other.copy()
+         if not other:
+
+Wait, this isn't quite right. Let me reconsider. The issue is that `deepcopy` fails on dict_keys. The fix should be in the `deconstruct` method or we need to convert non-pickleable iterables to lists.
+
+Actually, looking at this more carefully, the real fix should be to convert the children values to lists when they are iterators/views that can't be pickled. This should happen in the `__deepcopy__` method or in the `_combine` method.
+
+Here's the correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
++import copy
+ import functools
+ from collections import namedtuple
+ 
+@@ -46,6 +47,13 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+             raise TypeError(other)
+         return self._combine(other, self.OR)
+ 
++    def __deepcopy__(self, memo):
++        obj = type(self)()
++        obj.connector = self.connector
++        obj.negated = self.negated
++        obj.children = copy.deepcopy(self.children, memo)
++        return obj
++
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
+         if not(isinstance(other, Q)):
+             raise TypeError(other)
+
+Hmm, but that won't solve the issue since the deepcopy of children will still fail. The real issue is that the children contain tuples like `('x__in', dict_keys([]))` and deepcopy can't handle `dict_keys`.
+
+The proper solution is to resolve the children to pickleable types. Let me think about this again...
+
+The solution should resolve non-pickleable iterables to lists during the deepcopy. Here's the correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -46,6 +47,20 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+             raise TypeError(other)
+         return self._combine(other, self.OR)
+ 
++    def _resolve_children(self):
++        """
++        Resolve children that may contain non-pickleable iterables
++        (e.g., dict_keys) by converting them to lists.
++        """
++        resolved_children = []
++        for child in self.children:
++            if isinstance(child, tuple) and len(child) == 2:
++                key, value = child
++                if hasattr(value, '__iter__') and not isinstance(value, (str, bytes, list, tuple, set, frozenset, dict)):
++                    value = list(value)
++                resolved_children.append((key, value))
++            else:
++                resolved_children.append(child)
++        return resolved_children
++
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
+         if not(isinstance(other, Q)):
+             raise TypeError(other)
+
+Actually, looking at this from the perspective of the actual Django codebase and the referenced commit, the simpler approach is to implement `__deepcopy__` that deconstructs and reconstructs the Q object. Let me provide the correct fix:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -40,6 +40,13 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+     def __init__(self, *args, _connector=None, _negated=False, **kwargs):
+         super().__init__(children=[*args, *sorted(kwargs.items())], connector=_connector, negated=_negated)
+ 
++    def __deepcopy__(self, memo):
++        obj = type(self)()
++        obj.connector = self.connector
++        obj.negated = self.negated
++        obj.children = [(k, list(v) if hasattr(v, '__iter__') and not isinstance(v, (str, bytes, list, tuple, dict, set, frozenset)) else v) if isinstance(child, tuple) and len(child) == 2 and (k := child[0]) is not None and (v := child[1]) is not None or True else child for child in copy.deepcopy([(k, list(v) if hasattr(v, '__iter__') and not isinstance(v, (str, bytes, list, tuple, dict, set, frozenset)) else v) if isinstance(c, tuple) and len(c) == 2 and (k := c[0], v := c[1]) else c for c in self.children], memo)]
++        return obj
+
+That's too complex. Let me provide a cleaner solution:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
++import copy
+ import functools
+ from collections import namedtuple
+ 
+@@ -40,6 +41,24 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+     def __init__(self, *args, _connector=None, _negated=False, **kwargs):
+         super().__init__(children=[*args, *sorted(kwargs.items())], connector=_connector, negated=_negated)
+ 
++    def __deepcopy__(self, memo):
++        obj = type(self)()
++        obj.connector = self.connector
++        obj.negated = self.negated
++        obj.children = copy.deepcopy(self._resolve_children(), memo)
++        return obj
++
++    def _resolve_children(self):
++        resolved = []
++        for child in self.children:
++            if isinstance(child, tuple) and len(child) == 2:
++                key, value = child
++                if hasattr(value, '__iter__') and not isinstance(value, (str, bytes, list, tuple, set, frozenset, dict, type(None))):
++                    child = (key, list(value))
++            resolved.append(child)
++        return resolved
++
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
+         if not(isinstance(other, Q)):
+             raise TypeError(other)

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14017.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+This is not a Django repository. This issue is from the django/django repository, but I'm in a different directory. Let me understand the issue from the problem statement and create the patch based on my knowledge of Django's codebase.
+
+Based on the issue description:
+1. `Exists(...) & Q(...)` works
+2. `Q(...) & Exists(...)` raises TypeError
+3. The issue is in `Q._combine` which raises TypeError when `other` is not a Q instance
+4. The fix suggested is adding `__rand__` (and `__ror__`) to make the operations commutative
+
+The issue is that when we do `Q() & Exists(...)`, Python calls `Q.__and__(Exists(...))` which internally calls `Q._combine()`. This method checks if `other` is an instance of `Q` and raises TypeError if not.
+
+However, when `Exists(...) & Q()` is called, Python first tries `Exists.__and__(Q())`. Since `Exists` inherits from `Combinable`, its `_combine` method doesn't have the same strict type checking, so it works.
+
+The fix should modify `Q._combine` to handle `Combinable` objects (like `Exists`) properly. Looking at the hint about a PR and the test cases, the fix should allow combining Q objects with Combinable expressions.
+
+Here's the patch for Django's query_utils.py:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -40,6 +40,10 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+     conditional = True
+ 
+     def __init__(self, *args, _connector=None, _negated=False, **kwargs):
++        # Import here to avoid circular imports.
++        from django.db.models.lookups import Lookup
++        from django.db.models.expressions import BaseExpression
++        self._resolve_types = (Lookup, BaseExpression)
+         super().__init__(children=[*args, *sorted(kwargs.items())], connector=_connector, negated=_negated)
+ 
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
+@@ -69,6 +73,9 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+     def __and__(self, other):
+         return self._combine(other, self.AND)
+ 
++    def __rand__(self, other):
++        return self._combine(other, self.AND)
++
+     def __invert__(self):
+         obj = type(self)()
+         obj.add(self, self.AND)
+
+Wait, I need to reconsider. The issue is that `Q._combine` raises TypeError when other is not a Q instance. But looking more carefully:
+
+When `Q() & Exists()` is called:
+1. Python calls `Q.__and__(Exists())`
+2. This calls `Q._combine(Exists(), AND)`
+3. `_combine` checks `isinstance(other, Q)` which is False for Exists
+4. TypeError is raised
+
+When `Exists() & Q()` is called:
+1. Python calls `Exists.__and__(Q())`
+2. Since Exists inherits from Combinable, it uses `Combinable._combine`
+3. That method doesn't have the strict isinstance check, so it works
+
+The fix should modify `Q._combine` to also accept `Combinable` expressions. Let me create the correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -68,10 +68,16 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+ 
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
+-        if not isinstance(other, Q):
++        if not(isinstance(other, Q) or getattr(other, 'conditional', False)):
+             raise TypeError(other)
+ 
+         # If the other Q() is empty, ignore it and just use `self`.
+         if not other:
++            _, args, kwargs = self.deconstruct()
++            return type(self)(*args, **kwargs)
++
++        # Or if this Q is empty, ignore it and just use `other`.
++        if not self:
++            if hasattr(other, 'resolve_expression'):
++                return other
+             _, args, kwargs = self.deconstruct()
+             return type(self)(*args, **kwargs)
+
+Actually, looking at the issue more carefully, I realize the simplest fix is to check for `Combinable` objects that have `conditional=True` (which includes Exists). Let me provide a cleaner patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/query_utils.py
++++ b/django/db/models/query_utils.py
+@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ class Q(tree.Node):
+ 
+     def _combine(self, other, conn):
+-        if not isinstance(other, Q):
++        if not isinstance(other, Q) and not getattr(other, 'conditional', False):
+             raise TypeError(other)
+ 
+         # If the other Q() is empty, ignore it and just use `self`.

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14155.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can generate the patch. The ResolverMatch class is in `django/urls/resolvers.py`. The issue is that when a `functools.partial` is passed as the view, the `__repr__` shows `functools.partial` which isn't helpful. The solution is to unwrap `functools.partial` objects in `ResolverMatch.__init__()`.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/urls/resolvers.py
++++ b/django/urls/resolvers.py
+@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
+ """
+ This module converts requested URLs to callback view functions.
+ 
++import functools
+ URLResolver is the main class here. Its resolve() method takes a URL (as
+ a string) and returns a ResolverMatch object which provides access to all
+ attributes of the resolved URL match.
+@@ -28,6 +29,16 @@ class ResolverMatch:
+         self.app_names = [x for x in app_names if x] if app_names else []
+         self.app_name = ':'.join(self.app_names)
+         self.namespaces = [x for x in namespaces if x] if namespaces else []
+         self.namespace = ':'.join(self.namespaces)
++
++        if isinstance(func, functools.partial):
++            self.func = func
++            self._func_path = func.func.__module__ + '.' + func.func.__name__
++            self.args = func.args + args
++            self.kwargs = {**func.keywords, **kwargs}
++        else:
++            self.func = func
++            self._func_path = func.__module__ + '.' + func.__name__
++            self.args = args
++            self.kwargs = kwargs
+
+Wait, I need to look at actual Django code more carefully. Let me provide a more accurate patch based on my knowledge of Django:
+
+--- a/django/urls/resolvers.py
++++ b/django/urls/resolvers.py
+@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
+ """
+ This module converts requested URLs to callback view functions.
+ 
++import functools
+ URLResolver is the main class here. Its resolve() method takes a URL (as
+ a string) and returns a ResolverMatch object which provides access to all
+ attributes of the resolved URL match.
+@@ -28,6 +29,14 @@ class ResolverMatch:
+     def __init__(self, func, args, kwargs, url_name=None, app_names=None, namespaces=None, route=None, tried=None):
+         self.func = func
+         self.args = args
+         self.kwargs = kwargs
++        if isinstance(func, functools.partial):
++            func_path = func.func
++            self.args = func.args + args
++            self.kwargs = {**func.keywords, **kwargs}
++        else:
++            func_path = func
++        if hasattr(func_path, 'view_class'):
++            func_path = func_path.view_class
+         self.url_name = url_name
+         self.route = route
+         self.tried = tried
+@@ -35,11 +44,7 @@ class ResolverMatch:
+         self.app_name = ':'.join(self.app_names)
+         self.namespaces = [x for x in namespaces if x] if namespaces else []
+         self.namespace = ':'.join(self.namespaces)
+-
+-        if hasattr(func, 'view_class'):
+-            func = func.view_class
+-        if not hasattr(func, '__name__'):
++        if not hasattr(func_path, '__name__'):
+             # A class-based view
+-            self._func_path = func.__class__.__module__ + '.' + func.__class__.__name__
++            self._func_path = func_path.__class__.__module__ + '.' + func_path.__class__.__name__
+         else:
+-            self._func_path = func.__module__ + '.' + func.__name__
++            self._func_path = func_path.__module__ + '.' + func_path.__name__

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14238.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+Based on the issue description and my knowledge of the Django codebase, I can generate the fix. The issue is that the `AutoFieldMeta` metaclass has a `_subclasses` property that only includes `AutoField`, `BigAutoField`, and `SmallAutoField` directly, but doesn't properly handle subclasses of `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` in its `__subclasscheck__` method.
+
+The problem is in `django/db/models/fields/__init__.py`. The `_subclasses` property returns a tuple with just the three base auto field classes, and the `__subclasscheck__` method only checks if a class is a subclass of `AutoField` but doesn't account for the fact that `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` have their own subclasses that should also be considered valid.
+
+Looking at the error message and the traceback, the fix needs to be in the `AutoFieldMeta.__subclasscheck__` method. The current implementation likely only checks against `AutoField` directly, but since `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` are siblings of `AutoField` (both inherit from `AutoFieldMixin` and `IntegerField`/`BigIntegerField`/`SmallIntegerField`), their subclasses aren't properly recognized.
+
+The fix is to modify the `_subclasses` property in `AutoFieldMeta` to include `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` so that the `__subclasscheck__` method properly recognizes subclasses of these fields as valid auto fields.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
+@@ -2551,6 +2551,8 @@ class AutoFieldMeta(type):
+     @property
+     def _subclasses(self):
+         return (AutoField, BigAutoField, SmallAutoField)
++        return (AutoField, BigAutoField, SmallAutoField) + tuple(
++            cls for cls in (BigAutoField, SmallAutoField) for cls in cls.__subclasses__()
++        )
+ 
+     def __instancecheck__(self, instance):
+         return isinstance(instance, self._subclasses) or super().__instancecheck__(instance)
+
+Wait, that's not correct. Let me reconsider the issue more carefully.
+
+Looking at the problem: When you have `class MyBigAutoField(models.BigAutoField)`, the `__subclasscheck__` method needs to return `True` when checking if `MyBigAutoField` is a subclass of `AutoField`. 
+
+The current implementation of `__subclasscheck__` likely does something like:
+```python
+def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+    return subclass in self._subclasses or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+```
+
+But the issue is that `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` don't actually inherit from `AutoField` - they all inherit from `AutoFieldMixin`. So when checking `issubclass(MyBigAutoField, AutoField)`, Python's normal `issubclass` won't work because `BigAutoField` is not a subclass of `AutoField`.
+
+The fix should modify the `__subclasscheck__` to check if the class is a subclass of any class in `_subclasses`, not just if it's in `_subclasses`:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
+@@ -2555,4 +2555,4 @@ class AutoFieldMeta(type):
+         return isinstance(instance, self._subclasses) or super().__instancecheck__(instance)
+ 
+     def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+-        return subclass in self._subclasses or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
++        return issubclass(subclass, self._subclasses) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+
+Hmm, but this might cause infinite recursion. Let me think about this more carefully.
+
+The metaclass `AutoFieldMeta` is used by `AutoField`. The `_subclasses` property returns `(AutoField, BigAutoField, SmallAutoField)`. 
+
+When checking `issubclass(MyBigAutoField, AutoField)`:
+1. Python calls `AutoFieldMeta.__subclasscheck__(AutoField, MyBigAutoField)`
+2. Current implementation: `MyBigAutoField in (AutoField, BigAutoField, SmallAutoField)` - this is `False`
+3. Then it calls `super().__subclasscheck__(MyBigAutoField)` which is `type.__subclasscheck__` - this checks if `MyBigAutoField` is in `AutoField.__mro__`, which it isn't.
+
+The fix should check if `MyBigAutoField` is a subclass of any of the classes in `_subclasses`. We need to use the standard `type.__subclasscheck__` to avoid recursion:
+
+```python
+def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+    return any(
+        type.__subclasscheck__(cls, subclass) for cls in self._subclasses
+    ) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+```
+
+Or more simply, since `issubclass` on regular classes (not the metaclass) should work:
+
+```python
+def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+    return issubclass(subclass, self._subclasses) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+```
+
+Wait, but this could cause recursion if `subclass` also uses `AutoFieldMeta`. Let me think again...
+
+Actually, `issubclass(MyBigAutoField, BigAutoField)` would work correctly because `BigAutoField` uses the regular `type` metaclass for this check, and `MyBigAutoField` inherits from `BigAutoField`. 
+
+The issue is that `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` classes themselves don't use `AutoFieldMeta` as their metaclass - only `AutoField` does. So `issubclass(subclass, self._subclasses)` should work correctly without causing infinite recursion.
+
+Let me verify this understanding and create the correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
+@@ -2555,4 +2555,4 @@ class AutoFieldMeta(type):
+         return isinstance(instance, self._subclasses) or super().__instancecheck__(instance)
+ 
+     def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+-        return subclass in self._subclasses or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
++        return issubclass(subclass, self._subclasses) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+
+But wait, I need to double-check. Looking at Django's structure:
+- `AutoField` has `AutoFieldMeta` as its metaclass
+- `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` also need to be checked
+
+If `BigAutoField` also uses `AutoFieldMeta`, then `issubclass(MyBigAutoField, BigAutoField)` would call `AutoFieldMeta.__subclasscheck__` again, potentially causing issues.
+
+Actually, looking more carefully at Django's code structure, `BigAutoField` and `SmallAutoField` would inherit the metaclass from their parent class. But since they inherit from `BigIntegerField` and `SmallIntegerField` respectively (which don't use `AutoFieldMeta`), and `AutoFieldMixin`, the metaclass situation is more complex.
+
+Let me use a safer approach that avoids the potential recursion by using `super().__subclasscheck__` which delegates to `type.__subclasscheck__`:
+
+```python
+def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+    return any(
+        super().__subclasscheck__(subclass) if cls is self else issubclass(subclass, cls)
+        for cls in self._subclasses
+    ) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+```
+
+Actually, the simplest fix that matches the description in the issue is to just use `issubclass` directly:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
+@@ -2555,4 +2555,4 @@ class AutoFieldMeta(type):
+         return isinstance(instance, self._subclasses) or super().__instancecheck__(instance)
+ 
+     def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+-        return subclass in self._subclasses or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
++        return issubclass(subclass, self._subclasses) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
+
+This should work because:
+1. `issubclass(MyBigAutoField, (AutoField, BigAutoField, SmallAutoField))` will return `True` because `MyBigAutoField` is a subclass of `BigAutoField`
+2. Since `BigAutoField` doesn't use `AutoFieldMeta` as its metaclass (it inherits from `BigIntegerField`), there's no recursion issue
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
+@@ -2551,7 +2551,7 @@ class AutoFieldMeta(type):
+     @property
+     def _subclasses(self):
+         return (AutoField, BigAutoField, SmallAutoField)
+
+     def __instancecheck__(self, instance):
+         return isinstance(instance, self._subclasses) or super().__instancecheck__(instance)
+
+     def __subclasscheck__(self, subclass):
+-        return subclass in self._subclasses or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)
++        return issubclass(subclass, self._subclasses) or super().__subclasscheck__(subclass)

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14382.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+This appears to be a separate repository. The task is asking to generate a patch for the django/django repository, not a file in this current directory. Based on the problem statement, I have all the information needed to create the patch:
+
+The issue is in `django/core/management/templates.py` at line 77, where `os.path.basename(target)` is called without handling trailing slashes. The fix is to strip trailing slashes before calling `basename()`.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/core/management/templates.py
++++ b/django/core/management/templates.py
+@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ class TemplateCommand(BaseCommand):
+             raise CommandError(e)
+         else:
+             if app_or_project == 'app':
+-                self.validate_name(os.path.basename(target), 'directory')
++                self.validate_name(os.path.basename(target.rstrip(os.sep)), 'directory')
+             top_dir = os.path.abspath(os.path.expanduser(target))
+             if not os.path.exists(top_dir):
+                 raise CommandError("Destination directory '%s' does not "

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14411.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and this specific issue, I can provide the fix. The issue is that `ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget` renders text (not an input), so the label's `for` attribute points to nothing meaningful. The fix is to override the `id_for_label` method to return `None`, which will prevent the label from having a `for` attribute.
+
+In Django's widget system, when `id_for_label()` returns `None`, the label element won't have a `for` attribute. This is the correct behavior for non-labelable elements.
+
+--- a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py
++++ b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py
+@@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ class ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget(forms.Widget):
+         })
+         return context
+ 
++    def id_for_label(self, id_, index=None):
++        return None
++
+ 
+ class ReadOnlyPasswordHashField(forms.Field):
+     widget = ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14534.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+This codebase doesn't contain Django. Based on the GitHub issue, I need to generate a patch for the Django repository. The issue is clearly described - the `BoundWidget.id_for_label()` method should return `self.data['attrs']['id']` instead of hardcoding the format `'id_%s_%s' % (self.data['name'], self.data['index'])`.
+
+Based on the issue description and the referenced pull requests, I can generate the fix. The file is `django/forms/boundfield.py` and the change is straightforward:
+
+From:
+```python
+def id_for_label(self):
+    return 'id_%s_%s' % (self.data['name'], self.data['index'])
+```
+
+To:
+```python
+def id_for_label(self):
+    return self.data['attrs']['id']
+```
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/forms/boundfield.py
++++ b/django/forms/boundfield.py
+@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ class BoundWidget:
+ 
+     @property
+     def id_for_label(self):
+-        return 'id_%s_%s' % (self.data['name'], self.data['index'])
++        return self.data['attrs']['id']
+ 
+     @property
+     def choice_label(self):

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14580.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+That's a different issue. Based on the problem statement and hints provided, the fix is straightforward. The issue is that when `models.Model` is serialized in the `bases` tuple of a migration, it outputs `models.Model` but doesn't include the necessary import statement `from django.db import models`.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/serializer.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/serializer.py
+@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ class TypeSerializer(BaseSerializer):
+ class TypeSerializer(BaseSerializer):
+     def serialize(self):
+         special_cases = [
+-            (models.Model, "models.Model", []),
++            (models.Model, "models.Model", ['from django.db import models']),
+             (type(None), 'type(None)', []),
+         ]
+         for case, string, imports in special_cases:

package/templates/skills/extended/devops/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14608.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can create the patch. The issue is asking to:
+
+1. Add `error_class='nonform'` when creating the ErrorList in the `non_form_errors()` method in `django/forms/formsets.py`
+
+This mirrors how Forms handle non-field errors with `error_class='nonfield'` in the `non_field_errors()` method.
+
+Looking at Django's code structure:
+- In `forms.py`, `non_field_errors()` returns `self.errors.get(NON_FIELD_ERRORS, self.error_class(error_class='nonfield'))`
+- In `formsets.py`, `non_form_errors()` should similarly pass `error_class='nonform'`
+
+The change needs to be made in `django/forms/formsets.py` in the `non_form_errors()` method.
+
+Based on Django's source code structure, here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/forms/formsets.py
++++ b/django/forms/formsets.py
+@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ class BaseFormSet:
+         if self._non_form_errors is None:
+             self.full_clean()
+         return self._non_form_errors
+ 
+     @property
+     def errors(self):
+@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ class BaseFormSet:
+             # Give self.clean() a chance to do cross-form validation.
+             self.clean()
+         except ValidationError as e:
+-            self._non_form_errors = self.error_class(e.error_list)
++            self._non_form_errors = self.error_class(e.error_list, error_class='nonform')
+ 
+     def clean(self):
+         """