namnam-skills 1.0.3 → 1.0.4

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16041.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+This is a Django issue that needs to be resolved in the Django codebase. Based on the problem statement and hints provided, I can generate the patch. The issue is in `django/forms/formsets.py` where the `empty_form` property passes `empty_permitted=True` directly to the form constructor, but also spreads `self.get_form_kwargs(None)` which may already contain `empty_permitted`, causing a "got multiple values for keyword argument" error.
+
+The fix is to build the form_kwargs dict first (allowing later keys to override earlier ones), then pass it to the form constructor:
+
+```
+--- a/django/forms/formsets.py
++++ b/django/forms/formsets.py
+@@ -257,13 +257,16 @@ class BaseFormSet(RenderableFormMixin):
+ 
+     @property
+     def empty_form(self):
+-        form = self.form(
+-            auto_id=self.auto_id,
+-            prefix=self.add_prefix("__prefix__"),
+-            empty_permitted=True,
+-            use_required_attribute=False,
++        form_kwargs = {
+             **self.get_form_kwargs(None),
+-            renderer=self.renderer,
+-        )
++            "auto_id": self.auto_id,
++            "prefix": self.add_prefix("__prefix__"),
++            "empty_permitted": True,
++            "use_required_attribute": False,
++            "renderer": self.renderer,
++        }
++        form = self.form(**form_kwargs)
+         self.add_fields(form, None)
+         return form
+```

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16046.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+Based on the issue description, I understand the problem. The Django `numberformat.py` file has code that checks if `str_number[0] == "-"` to detect negative numbers, but when the number field is null/empty, this causes an `IndexError: string index out of range` because you can't index into an empty string.
+
+The fix is to check if `str_number` is non-empty before checking its first character. Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/utils/numberformat.py
++++ b/django/utils/numberformat.py
+@@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ def format(number, decimal_sep, decimal_pos=None, grouping=0, thousand_sep='',
+     # sign
+     sign = ''
+     str_number = str(number)
++    if not str_number:
++        return ''
++
+     if str_number[0] == '-':
+         sign = '-'
+         str_number = str_number[1:]

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16139.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+This appears to be a task asking me to generate a patch for Django's codebase based on the issue description. The issue is in the `UserChangeForm` class where the password reset link is constructed using a relative path `../password/` which breaks when the admin is accessed via a `to_field` parameter.
+
+Based on the issue description, the fix is straightforward:
+- Current code: `password.help_text = password.help_text.format("../password/")`
+- Fixed code: `password.help_text = password.help_text.format(f"../../{self.instance.pk}/password/")`
+
+The file in question is `django/contrib/auth/forms.py` based on standard Django structure.
+
+--- a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py
++++ b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py
+@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ class UserChangeForm(forms.ModelForm):
+         super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
+         password = self.fields.get("password")
+         if password:
+-            password.help_text = password.help_text.format("../password/")
++            password.help_text = password.help_text.format(f"../../{self.instance.pk}/password/")
+         user_permissions = self.fields.get("user_permissions")
+         if user_permissions:
+             user_permissions.queryset = user_permissions.queryset.select_related(

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16229.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase, I can analyze and fix this issue. The problem is in `django/forms/models.py` in the `apply_limit_choices_to_to_formfield` function or more specifically in how the form field's `show_hidden_initial` is determined.
+
+The issue is:
+1. When a model field has a callable default, Django's form field gets `show_hidden_initial=True` 
+2. This is because the callable is evaluated, making it appear the field has an initial value that could change
+3. However, for fields with callable defaults that return empty/default values (like `list`), this causes issues with `has_changed()` detection
+
+Looking at Django's code, the fix should be in `django/forms/models.py` where `show_hidden_initial` is set based on whether the field has a callable default. The specific issue is that when the default is callable, the form field shouldn't automatically get `show_hidden_initial=True` just because the initial value was derived from a callable.
+
+The fix should be in the function that constructs form fields from model fields. The `show_hidden_initial` should not be set to `True` when the initial value comes from a callable default on the model field.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -92,7 +92,10 @@ def construct_instance(form, instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
+ def apply_limit_choices_to_to_formfield(formfield):
+     """Apply limit_choices_to to the formfield's queryset if needed."""
+     from django.db.models import Exists, OuterRef, Q
+-    if hasattr(formfield, 'queryset') and hasattr(formfield, 'get_limit_choices_to'):
++    if hasattr(formfield, "queryset") and hasattr(formfield, "get_limit_choices_to"):
+         limit_choices_to = formfield.get_limit_choices_to()
+         if limit_choices_to:
+             complex_filter = limit_choices_to
+@@ -188,6 +191,10 @@ class ModelForm(BaseForm, metaclass=ModelFormMetaclass):
+ def modelform_factory(model, form=ModelForm, fields=None, exclude=None,
+                       formfield_callback=None, widgets=None, localized_fields=None,
+                       labels=None, help_texts=None, error_messages=None):
++    """
++    Return a ModelForm containing form fields for the given model. You can
++    optionally pass a `form` argument to use as a starting point for
++    constructing the ModelForm.
+--- a/django/forms/fields.py
++++ b/django/forms/fields.py
+@@ -136,8 +136,10 @@ class Field:
+     def has_changed(self, initial, data):
+         """Return True if data differs from initial."""
+         # Always return False if the field is disabled since self.bound_data
+-        # always uses the initial value in this case.
++        # always uses the initial value in this case.
+         if self.disabled:
+             return False
+         try:
+             data = self.to_python(data)
+
+Let me reconsider the actual fix based on the issue description more carefully. The issue is specifically about:
+
+1. A field with `default=list` (callable)
+2. On first submit with error, the hidden initial value gets the user's input
+3. On second submit, validation is bypassed
+
+The root cause is that `show_hidden_initial` is being set to `True` for fields with callable defaults. The fix should ensure that when a form field's initial value is derived from a callable default on a model field, `show_hidden_initial` should be set based on whether the callable actually produces a value that could change between requests.
+
+Looking at the Django code flow:
+1. `modelform_defines_fields` checks fields
+2. `fields_for_model` creates form fields from model fields  
+3. For each field, `formfield()` is called which sets `show_hidden_initial`
+
+The fix should be in how `show_hidden_initial` is determined. When the initial value comes from evaluating a callable default, the resulting value should be used for the hidden initial comparison, not the fact that it came from a callable.
+
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ def construct_instance(form, instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
+ def model_to_dict(instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
+     """
+     Return a dict containing the data in ``instance`` suitable for passing as
+@@ -86,7 +89,14 @@ def fields_for_model(model, fields=None, exclude=None, widgets=None,
+                      formfield_callback=None, localized_fields=None,
+                      labels=None, help_texts=None, error_messages=None,
+                      field_classes=None, *, apply_limit_choices_to=True):
+-    """
++    """Return a dictionary containing form fields for the given model.
++
++    ``fields`` is an optional list of field names. If provided, return only the
++    named fields.
++
++    ``exclude`` is an optional list of field names. If provided, exclude the
++    named fields from the returned fields, even if they are listed in the
++    ``fields`` argument.
+     field_dict = {}
+     ignored = []
+     opts = model._meta
+
+Based on the issue, the actual fix needs to be in how the initial value is propagated when a callable default is involved. The problem is in `django/forms/models.py` in the function that creates form fields.
+
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ def fields_for_model(
+             continue
+         kwargs = {}
++        if form_field is not None and f.has_default() and callable(f.default):
++            kwargs["show_hidden_initial"] = False
+         if widgets and f.name in widgets:
+             kwargs["widget"] = widgets[f.name]
+         if localized_fields == ALL_FIELDS or (
+
+Wait, I need to be more precise about the location of the fix. Let me provide the correct patch based on Django's actual codebase structure:
+
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ __all__ = (
+ ALL_FIELDS = "__all__"
+ 
+ 
++def _get_default_value(field):
++    """Return the default value for a model field, calling it if callable."""
++    if callable(field.default):
++        return field.default()
++    return field.default
++
++
+ def construct_instance(form, instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
+     """
+     Construct and return a model instance from the bound ``form``'s
+@@ -91,6 +97,10 @@ def fields_for_model(
+             kwargs = {}
+             if widgets and f.name in widgets:
+                 kwargs["widget"] = widgets[f.name]
++            # Don't show hidden initial for fields with callable defaults,
++            # as the value has already been evaluated.
++            if f.has_default() and callable(f.default):
++                kwargs["show_hidden_initial"] = False
+             if localized_fields == ALL_FIELDS or (
+                 localized_fields and f.name in localized_fields
+             ):
+
+Actually, looking at this more carefully, the real issue is about how form fields determine `show_hidden_initial`. The issue is that when a model field has a callable default, the form field's `show_hidden_initial` becomes True, which causes issues with the `has_changed()` detection.
+
+Let me provide the correct minimal patch:
+
+--- a/django/forms/models.py
++++ b/django/forms/models.py
+@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ def fields_for_model(
+         kwargs = {}
+         if widgets and f.name in widgets:
+             kwargs["widget"] = widgets[f.name]
++        # Fields with callable defaults should not show hidden initial.
++        if f.has_default() and callable(f.default):
++            kwargs["show_hidden_initial"] = False
+         if localized_fields == ALL_FIELDS or (
+             localized_fields and f.name in localized_fields
+         ):

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16255.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+This is not the Django repository. The task is to generate a patch for the Django sitemaps issue. Based on the problem statement and the hint, I need to generate the patch. Let me create the fix based on the information provided:
+
+The issue is in `django/contrib/sitemaps/__init__.py` at the `get_latest_lastmod` method. When a sitemap has no items but has a callable `lastmod`, it raises a `ValueError` because `max()` is called on an empty sequence.
+
+The hint suggests using the default argument of `max()`. Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/sitemaps/__init__.py
++++ b/django/contrib/sitemaps/__init__.py
+@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ class Sitemap:
+         if not hasattr(self, "lastmod"):
+             return None
+         if callable(self.lastmod):
+-            try:
+-                return max([self.lastmod(item) for item in self.items()])
+-            except TypeError:
++            try:
++                return max([self.lastmod(item) for item in self.items()], default=None)
++            except TypeError:
+                 return None
+         else:
+             return self.lastmod

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16379.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+This is a different repository. The task is asking me to generate a patch for the Django repository's `FileBasedCache.has_key` method. I need to understand the issue and create the appropriate patch based on the problem description.
+
+Based on the issue description, the problem is in `django/core/cache/backends/filebased.py`. The `has_key` method has a race condition:
+
+```python
+def has_key(self, key, version=None):
+    fname = self._key_to_file(key, version)
+    if os.path.exists(fname):
+        with open(fname, "rb") as f:
+            return not self._is_expired(f)
+    return False
+```
+
+Between `os.path.exists(fname)` and `open(fname, "rb")`, the file can be deleted by another thread, causing a `FileNotFoundError`.
+
+The fix is to handle the `FileNotFoundError` exception instead of checking if the file exists first. Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/core/cache/backends/filebased.py
++++ b/django/core/cache/backends/filebased.py
+@@ -91,7 +91,10 @@ class FileBasedCache(BaseCache):
+ 
+     def has_key(self, key, version=None):
+         fname = self._key_to_file(key, version)
+-        if os.path.exists(fname):
+-            with open(fname, "rb") as f:
+-                return not self._is_expired(f)
+-        return False
++        try:
++            with open(fname, "rb") as f:
++                return not self._is_expired(f)
++        except FileNotFoundError:
++            return False

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16400.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+This is a Django issue but the current directory is not the Django repository. The task is asking me to generate a patch for the Django project. Let me create the patch based on the issue description and the hints provided. The fix is in `django/contrib/auth/management/__init__.py`.
+
+Based on the issue description and hints, the problem is:
+1. When `migrate` command is run with a `--database` parameter, the permission creation doesn't respect this parameter
+2. When creating `Permission` objects, the `_state.db` is not set, causing `get_content_type()` to look in the default database instead of the specified one
+3. The fix is to set `_state.db = using` on each `Permission` object before setting the `content_type`
+
+Here's the patch based on the hint provided by Mariusz Felisiak:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/auth/management/__init__.py
++++ b/django/contrib/auth/management/__init__.py
+@@ -94,10 +94,14 @@ def create_permissions(
+         )
+         .values_list("content_type", "codename")
+     )
+-
+-    perms = [
+-        Permission(codename=codename, name=name, content_type=ct)
+-        for ct, (codename, name) in searched_perms
+-        if (ct.pk, codename) not in all_perms
+-    ]
++    perms = []
++    for ct, (codename, name) in searched_perms:
++        if (ct.pk, codename) not in all_perms:
++            permission = Permission(
++                codename=codename,
++                name=name,
++                content_type=ct,
++            )
++            permission._state.db = using
++            perms.append(permission)
+     Permission.objects.using(using).bulk_create(perms)
+     if verbosity >= 2:
+         for perm in perms:

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16408.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Based on the issue description and the hints provided, I can understand the problem and generate the appropriate patch. The issue is that when using multi-level FilteredRelation with select_related(), the local_setter is incorrectly setting the related object on the wrong model because the intermediate object in the join chain is not being fetched.
+
+The hint clearly shows the fix: when `len(joins) > 2`, the `local_setter` should be a no-op function because there's no intermediate object to set the relation on.
+
+Here's the patch based on the provided hints:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
+@@ -1270,6 +1270,9 @@ class SQLCompiler:
+             if from_obj:
+                 final_field.remote_field.set_cached_value(from_obj, obj)
+ 
++        def no_local_setter(obj, from_obj):
++            pass
++
+         def remote_setter(name, obj, from_obj):
+             setattr(from_obj, name, obj)
+ 
+@@ -1291,7 +1294,7 @@ class SQLCompiler:
+                 "model": model,
+                 "field": final_field,
+                 "reverse": True,
+-                "local_setter": partial(local_setter, final_field),
++                "local_setter": partial(local_setter, final_field) if len(joins) <= 2 else no_local_setter,
+                 "remote_setter": partial(remote_setter, name),
+                 "from_parent": from_parent,
+             }

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16527.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+This is not a Django repository. Based on the issue description, I need to generate a patch for the Django codebase. The issue is about the `show_save_as_new` context variable in `django/contrib/admin/templatetags/admin_modify.py` at line 102. The fix requires adding `has_add_permission` check.
+
+Based on the problem statement and hints, here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/admin/templatetags/admin_modify.py
++++ b/django/contrib/admin/templatetags/admin_modify.py
+@@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ def submit_row(context):
+         "show_save_as_new": not is_popup
+         and has_change_permission
+         and change
++        and has_add_permission
+         and save_as,
+         "show_save_and_add_another": (
+             has_add_permission and not is_popup and (not save_as or add)

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16595.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can provide the patch. The issue is in `django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py` where the `AlterField.reduce` method doesn't handle the case when the operation it's being compared with is also an `AlterField` on the same field.
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py
+@@ -233,6 +233,11 @@ class AlterField(FieldOperation):
+             operation.model_name_lower == self.model_name_lower
+             and operation.name_lower == self.name_lower
+         ):
++            return [operation]
++        if isinstance(operation, AlterField) and self.is_same_field_operation(
++            operation
++        ):
+             return [operation]
+         return super().reduce(operation, app_label)

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16816.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Based on the issue description and the hints provided, I need to create a patch for Django's admin checks. The issue describes that E108 error doesn't catch reverse relations (like `ManyToOneRel`) in `list_display`. 
+
+From the hints, I can see:
+1. The fix should be in `django/contrib/admin/checks.py`
+2. The fix involves checking if the field is a `ManyToOneRel` and raising `FieldDoesNotExist` in that case
+3. The code path is in the `_check_list_display_item` method around line 897-905
+
+Let me construct the patch based on the hints provided:
+
+```
+--- a/django/contrib/admin/checks.py
++++ b/django/contrib/admin/checks.py
+@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ from django.core.exceptions import FieldDoesNotExist
+ from django.db import models
+ from django.db.models.constants import LOOKUP_SEP
+ from django.db.models.expressions import Combinable
++from django.db.models.fields.reverse_related import ForeignObjectRel
+ from django.forms.models import BaseModelForm, BaseModelFormSet, _get_foreign_key
+ from django.template import engines
+ from django.template.backends.django import DjangoTemplates
+@@ -897,6 +898,8 @@ class ModelAdminChecks(BaseModelAdminChecks):
+             return []
+         try:
+             field = obj.model._meta.get_field(item)
++            if isinstance(field, ForeignObjectRel):
++                raise FieldDoesNotExist
+         except FieldDoesNotExist:
+             try:
+                 field = getattr(obj.model, item)
+```

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16820.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+Let me try to understand the issue based on my knowledge of Django's migration system and the index_together deprecation. This is a well-known Django issue where:
+
+1. `Meta.index_together` is deprecated in favor of `Meta.indexes`
+2. When squashing migrations that transition from `index_together` to `indexes`, the deprecation warnings should be removed
+3. The migration optimizer needs to recognize when `AlterIndexTogether` followed by `AddIndex` (or similar) can be reduced
+
+Let me create the patch based on my understanding of Django's migration system. The key files involved are:
+- `django/db/migrations/optimizer.py` - handles migration optimization
+- `django/db/migrations/operations/models.py` - contains the model operations like `AlterIndexTogether` and `AddIndex`
+
+Based on Django's migration optimizer pattern, the fix should add optimization rules to handle the transition from `index_together` to `indexes`. When squashing migrations, if we see `AlterIndexTogether` removing an index followed by `AddIndex` adding the equivalent index, or vice versa, these should be optimized together to remove the deprecated `index_together` operations.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
+@@ -40,6 +40,17 @@ class MigrationOptimizer:
+         while result != new_operations:
+             result = new_operations
+             new_operations = self._optimize(result, app_label)
++        # After optimization, reduce AlterIndexTogether operations that are
++        # now empty to remove deprecation warnings when squashing.
++        new_operations = self._reduce_alter_index_together(new_operations)
++        return new_operations
++
++    def _reduce_alter_index_together(self, operations):
++        """
++        Remove AlterIndexTogether operations that have empty index_together
++        and whose indexes have been migrated to AddIndex operations.
++        """
++        new_operations = []
++        for i, operation in enumerate(operations):
++            if isinstance(operation, AlterIndexTogether) and not operation.index_together:
++                # Check if this empty AlterIndexTogether can be removed
++                # by verifying all indexes are covered by AddIndex operations
++                model_name = operation.name_lower
++                # Get all AddIndex operations for this model that appear before
++                preceding_add_indexes = [
++                    op for op in operations[:i]
++                    if isinstance(op, AddIndex) and op.model_name_lower == model_name
++                ]
++                # If we're setting index_together to empty (None or ()),
++                # and there are AddIndex operations preceding it,
++                # this indicates a migration from index_together to indexes
++                # Skip this AlterIndexTogether as it's no longer needed
++                if preceding_add_indexes or not operation.index_together:
++                    continue
++            new_operations.append(operation)
+         return new_operations
+```
+
+Wait, I need to understand the exact issue better. Let me think about this more carefully.
+
+The issue is about migration squashing. When you have:
+1. Migration 1: Creates model with `index_together = [('field1', 'field2')]`
+2. Migration 2: Changes to `indexes = [Index(fields=['field1', 'field2'])]` and removes `index_together`
+
+When squashing, the result should not include `AlterIndexTogether` at all - it should just use the final `indexes` form.
+
+The optimizer needs to recognize this pattern and reduce it. Looking at how Django's optimizer works, it iterates through operations and tries to reduce pairs of operations.
+
+The key is in the `reduce` method of operations. Each operation can define how it reduces with other operations.
+
+Here's the actual patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
+@@ -531,6 +531,26 @@ class AlterIndexTogether(AlterTogetherOptionOperation):
+     def __init__(self, name, index_together):
+         super().__init__(name, index_together)
+ 
++    def reduce(self, operation, app_label):
++        if isinstance(operation, AlterIndexTogether) and self.name_lower == operation.name_lower:
++            return [operation]
++        return super().reduce(operation, app_label)
++
+ 
+ class AlterOrderWithRespectTo(ModelOptionOperation):
+     """Represent a change with the order_with_respect_to option."""
+
+Actually, I need to look at the actual structure of the Django codebase. Let me provide a patch based on the standard Django 4.2+ codebase structure:
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
+@@ -753,6 +753,32 @@ class AlterIndexTogether(AlterTogetherOptionOperation):
+ 
+     def __init__(self, name, index_together):
+         super().__init__(name, index_together)
++    
++    def reduce(self, operation, app_label):
++        if isinstance(operation, (AddIndex, RemoveIndex)) and self.name_lower == operation.model_name_lower:
++            if self.option_value:
++                return [operation, self]
++            else:
++                # Empty index_together being set, check if this is part of
++                # index_together -> indexes migration
++                return [operation]
++        return super().reduce(operation, app_label)
+
+
+Let me provide a more accurate patch based on Django's structure. The issue is specifically about the optimizer reducing operations when squashing migrations that transition from `index_together` to `indexes`.
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
+@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
++from django.db.migrations.operations.models import (
++    AddIndex,
++    AlterIndexTogether,
++    CreateModel,
++    RemoveIndex,
++)
++
++
+ class MigrationOptimizer:
+     """
+     Power the optimization process, where you provide a list of Operations
+@@ -40,6 +47,44 @@ class MigrationOptimizer:
+         while result != new_operations:
+             result = new_operations
+             new_operations = self._optimize(result, app_label)
++        new_operations = self._optimize_index_together(new_operations)
++        return new_operations
++
++    def _optimize_index_together(self, operations):
++        """
++        Remove AlterIndexTogether operations when index_together has been
++        migrated to Meta.indexes via AddIndex operations. This handles the
++        index_together -> indexes deprecation transition during squashing.
++        """
++        # Build a mapping of models to their index operations
++        add_index_models = set()
++        for op in operations:
++            if isinstance(op, AddIndex):
++                add_index_models.add(op.model_name_lower)
++
++        new_operations = []
++        for op in operations:
++            if isinstance(op, AlterIndexTogether):
++                # If setting index_together to empty and there are AddIndex
++                # operations for this model, skip the AlterIndexTogether
++                # as the indexes have been migrated to Meta.indexes
++                if not op.option_value and op.name_lower in add_index_models:
++                    continue
++            elif isinstance(op, CreateModel):
++                # If CreateModel has both index_together and indexes for the
++                # same fields, remove index_together
++                if op.options.get('index_together') and op.options.get('indexes'):
++                    # Check if all index_together entries are covered by indexes
++                    # For now, if indexes exist and we're squashing, prefer indexes
++                    new_options = {**op.options}
++                    del new_options['index_together']
++                    op = CreateModel(
++                        op.name, op.fields, new_options, op.bases, op.managers
++                    )
++            new_operations.append(op)
+         return new_operations
+
+Actually, let me reconsider the approach. Looking at how Django handles this more carefully:
+
+The real issue is that when squashing migrations:
+1. You have an initial migration with `index_together` 
+2. Later migration removes `index_together` and adds equivalent `Index` objects to `indexes`
+
+When squashed, the intermediate `AlterIndexTogether` operations should be optimized away, leaving only the final `CreateModel` with `indexes` and no `index_together`.
+
+The fix needs to be in the optimizer to detect when `AlterIndexTogether` is reducing `index_together` to empty (None or empty set) alongside `AddIndex` operations that replace those indexes.
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
+@@ -753,6 +753,18 @@ class AlterIndexTogether(AlterTogetherOptionOperation):
+ 
+     def __init__(self, name, index_together):
+         super().__init__(name, index_together)
++
++    def reduce(self, operation, app_label):
++        if isinstance(operation, AddIndex) and self.name_lower == operation.model_name_lower:
++            # If we're setting index_together to empty (or removing entries)
++            # and adding indexes to replace them, we can drop the
++            # AlterIndexTogether when the index_together becomes empty.
++            if not self.option_value:
++                # index_together is being cleared, just return the AddIndex
++                return [operation]
++            return [operation, self]
++        return super().reduce(operation, app_label)
+ 
+ 
+ class AlterOrderWithRespectTo(ModelOptionOperation):

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16873.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+This repository doesn't contain the Django source code. Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can provide the fix. The issue is in the `join` filter in `django/template/defaultfilters.py`. 
+
+Looking at the Django source code and the issue:
+1. The `join` filter always escapes the joining string using `conditional_escape(arg)` 
+2. But when `autoescape` is off, the joining string should not be escaped
+
+The current implementation looks something like:
+```python
+@register.filter(is_safe=True, needs_autoescape=True)
+def join(value, arg, autoescape=True):
+    """Join a list with a string, like Python's ``str.join(list)``."""
+    try:
+        if autoescape:
+            value = [conditional_escape(v) for v in value]
+        data = conditional_escape(arg).join(value)
+    except TypeError:  # Fail silently if arg isn't iterable.
+        return value
+    return mark_safe(data)
+```
+
+The bug is that `conditional_escape(arg)` is called unconditionally regardless of the `autoescape` parameter. When `autoescape` is `off`, the joining string should not be escaped.
+
+Here's the fix:
+
+--- a/django/template/defaultfilters.py
++++ b/django/template/defaultfilters.py
+@@ -586,7 +586,10 @@ def join(value, arg, autoescape=True):
+     try:
+         if autoescape:
+             value = [conditional_escape(v) for v in value]
+-        data = conditional_escape(arg).join(value)
++            data = conditional_escape(arg).join(value)
++        else:
++            data = arg.join(value)
+     except TypeError:  # Fail silently if arg isn't iterable.
+         return value
+     return mark_safe(data)