port-nuker 1.0.0 → 1.0.3

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12497.patch

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12497
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-@@ -1248,8 +1248,8 @@ class ManyToManyField(RelatedField):
-                             self.remote_field.through._meta.object_name,
-                         ),
-                         hint=(
--                            'If you want to create a recursive relationship, '
--                            'use ForeignKey("%s", symmetrical=False, through="%s").'
-+                            'If you want to create a recursive relationship, '
-+                            'use ManyToManyField("%s", through="%s").'
-                         ) % (
-                             RECURSIVE_RELATIONSHIP_CONSTANT,
-                             self.remote_field.through._meta.object_name,

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12589.patch

@@ -1,56 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12589
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on the architect's analysis and the issue description, I can generate the patch. The issue is in the `set_group_by` method in `django/db/models/sql/query.py` where the alias is used in GROUP BY without checking for column name collisions.
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-@@ -1940,6 +1940,20 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
-                 # already part of the select clause.
-                 continue
-         for alias, annotation in self.annotation_select.items():
--            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=alias)
-+            # Check if the alias collides with any column name in joined tables.
-+            # If so, we need to use the full expression instead of the alias
-+            # to avoid ambiguous column reference errors in the GROUP BY clause.
-+            col_alias = alias
-+            for table_alias, table in self.alias_map.items():
-+                if hasattr(table, 'table_name'):
-+                    # Check if any column in this table has the same name as our alias
-+                    from django.db import connection
-+                    table_info = connection.introspection.get_table_description(
-+                        connection.cursor(), table.table_name
-+                    )
-+                    if any(col.name == alias for col in table_info):
-+                        col_alias = None
-+                        break
-+            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=col_alias)
-             group_by.extend(cols)
-         self.group_by = tuple(group_by)
-
-Wait, this approach using introspection at query time is too expensive. Let me reconsider with a simpler approach that checks column references in the query itself:
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-@@ -1940,7 +1940,22 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
-                 # already part of the select clause.
-                 continue
-         for alias, annotation in self.annotation_select.items():
--            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=alias)
-+            # Check if the alias collides with any column name in joined tables.
-+            # If so, we need to use the full expression instead of the alias
-+            # to avoid ambiguous column reference errors in the GROUP BY clause.
-+            col_alias = alias
-+            for join in self.alias_map.values():
-+                if hasattr(join, 'join_cols'):
-+                    # Check join columns for name collision
-+                    for lhs_col, rhs_col in join.join_cols:
-+                        if lhs_col == alias or rhs_col == alias:
-+                            col_alias = None
-+                            break
-+                if col_alias is None:
-+                    break
-+            cols = annotation.get_group_by_cols(alias=col_alias)
-             group_by.extend(cols)
-         self.group_by = tuple(group_by)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12700.patch

@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12700
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/views/debug.py
-+++ b/django/views/debug.py
-@@ -83,18 +83,25 @@ class SafeExceptionReporterFilter:
-         """
-         Cleanse an individual setting key/value of sensitive content. If the
-         value is a dictionary, recursively cleanse the keys in that dictionary.
-         """
-         try:
-             if self.hidden_settings.search(key):
-                 cleansed = self.cleansed_substitute
-             elif isinstance(value, dict):
-                 cleansed = {k: self.cleanse_setting(k, v) for k, v in value.items()}
-+            elif isinstance(value, list):
-+                cleansed = [self.cleanse_setting('', v) for v in value]
-+            elif isinstance(value, tuple):
-+                cleansed = tuple(self.cleanse_setting('', v) for v in value)
-             else:
-                 cleansed = value
-         except TypeError:
-             # If the key isn't regex-able, just return as-is.
-             cleansed = value
- 
-         if callable(googletag_cleansed):
-             cleansed = cleansed()

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12708.patch

@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12708
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on the issue description and the architect's analysis, I need to generate a patch for the Django `_delete_composed_index()` method. The bug is that when deleting an `index_together`, the method finds both the unique constraint and the index constraint because they share the same columns. The fix needs to filter by constraint type.
-
-Here's the patch:
-
-```
---- a/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
-+++ b/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
-@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ class BaseDatabaseSchemaEditor:
-         self.execute(self._delete_constraint_sql(self.sql_delete_pk, model, pk_names[0]))
-         return True
- 
--    def _delete_composed_index(self, model, fields, constraint_kwargs, sql):
-+    def _delete_composed_index(self, model, fields, constraint_kwargs, sql, exclude_unique=False):
-         columns = [model._meta.get_field(field).column for field in fields]
-         constraint_names = self._constraint_names(model, columns, **constraint_kwargs)
-         if len(constraint_names) != 1:
-@@ -375,7 +375,14 @@ class BaseDatabaseSchemaEditor:
-     def alter_index_together(self, model, old_index_together, new_index_together):
-         olds = {tuple(fields) for fields in old_index_together}
-         news = {tuple(fields) for fields in new_index_together}
--        # Deleted indexes
-+        # Deleted indexes. When removing an index, exclude unique constraints
-+        # from consideration since the same columns might have both
-+        # index_together and unique_together defined.
-         for fields in olds.difference(news):
--            self._delete_composed_index(model, fields, {'index': True}, self.sql_delete_index)
-+            self._delete_composed_index(
-+                model,
-+                fields,
-+                {'index': True, 'unique': False},
-+                self.sql_delete_index,
-+            )
-         # Created indexes
-         for fields in news.difference(olds):
-             self._create_index(model, fields, suffix='_idx')
-```
-
-Wait, let me reconsider. The issue is in `_constraint_names` which needs to filter properly. Let me provide a more targeted fix based on the actual Django codebase structure:
-
---- a/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
-+++ b/django/db/backends/base/schema.py
-@@ -375,8 +375,12 @@ class BaseDatabaseSchemaEditor:
-     def alter_index_together(self, model, old_index_together, new_index_together):
-         olds = {tuple(fields) for fields in old_index_together}
-         news = {tuple(fields) for fields in new_index_together}
--        # Deleted indexes
-+        # Deleted indexes. When removing an index, exclude unique constraints
-+        # from consideration since the same columns might have both
-+        # index_together and unique_together defined.
-         for fields in olds.difference(news):
--            self._delete_composed_index(model, fields, {'index': True}, self.sql_delete_index)
-+            self._delete_composed_index(
-+                model, fields, {'index': True, 'unique': False}, self.sql_delete_index
-+            )
-         # Created indexes
-         for fields in news.difference(olds):
-             self._create_index(model, fields, suffix='_idx')

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12747.patch

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12747
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/db/models/deletion.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/deletion.py
-@@ -408,6 +408,8 @@ class Collector:
-                         sender=model, origin=self.origin,
-                     )
- 
-+        # Filter out zero counts from deleted_counter for consistency
-+        deleted_counter = {key: count for key, count in deleted_counter.items() if count}
-         return sum(deleted_counter.values()), dict(deleted_counter)
- 
-     def related_objects(self, related_model, related_fields, objs):

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12856.patch

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12856
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on the architect's analysis and my knowledge of Django's codebase, I'll generate the patch. The issue is that `_check_constraints()` doesn't validate that fields in `UniqueConstraint` exist. The fix involves importing `UniqueConstraint` and adding field validation similar to what `unique_together` does.
-
-```
---- a/django/db/models/base.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/base.py
-@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ from django.db.models.fields.related import (
-     ForeignObjectRel, OneToOneField, lazy_related_operation, resolve_relation,
- )
- from django.db.models.functions import Coalesce
-+from django.db.models.constraints import UniqueConstraint
- from django.db.models.manager import Manager
- from django.db.models.options import Options
- from django.db.models.query import Q
-@@ -1953,6 +1954,16 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
-     @classmethod
-     def _check_constraints(cls, databases):
-         errors = []
-+        for constraint in cls._meta.constraints:
-+            if isinstance(constraint, UniqueConstraint) and constraint.fields:
-+                errors.extend(
-+                    cls._check_local_fields(
-+                        constraint.fields,
-+                        "constraints",
-+                    )
-+                )
-+        return errors
-+
-         for db in databases:
-             if not router.allow_migrate_model(db, cls):
-                 continue
-```
-
-Wait, I need to reconsider this. The method `_check_constraints` already has content checking database features. The field validation should be added before the database-specific checks, and it shouldn't return early. Let me revise:
-
-```
---- a/django/db/models/base.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/base.py
-@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ from django.db.models.fields.related import (
-     ForeignObjectRel, OneToOneField, lazy_related_operation, resolve_relation,
- )
- from django.db.models.functions import Coalesce
-+from django.db.models.constraints import UniqueConstraint
- from django.db.models.manager import Manager
- from django.db.models.options import Options
- from django.db.models.query import Q
-@@ -1953,6 +1954,11 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
-     @classmethod
-     def _check_constraints(cls, databases):
-         errors = []
-+        for constraint in cls._meta.constraints:
-+            if isinstance(constraint, UniqueConstraint) and constraint.fields:
-+                errors.extend(
-+                    cls._check_local_fields(constraint.fields, "constraints")
-+                )
-         for db in databases:
-             if not router.allow_migrate_model(db, cls):
-                 continue
-```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12908.patch

@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12908
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can generate the appropriate patch. The `distinct()` method in Django's QuerySet class needs to check if a combinator (union/intersection/difference) is set and raise a `NotSupportedError` if so.
-
-```
---- a/django/db/models/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/query.py
-@@ -1176,6 +1176,10 @@ class QuerySet:
- 
-     def distinct(self, *field_names):
-         """Return a new QuerySet instance that will select only distinct results."""
-+        if self.query.combinator:
-+            raise NotSupportedError(
-+                'Calling distinct() after %s() is not supported.' % self.query.combinator
-+            )
-         assert not self.query.is_sliced, \
-             "Cannot call distinct() after .distinct() or .order_by()[:n] (slicing)."
-         obj = self._chain()
-```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12915.patch

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12915
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/contrib/staticfiles/handlers.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/staticfiles/handlers.py
-@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ class StaticFilesHandlerMixin:
-             return self.serve(request)
-         return super().get_response(request)
- 
-+    async def get_response_async(self, request):
-+        if self._should_handle(request.path):
-+            return self.serve(request)
-+        return await super().get_response_async(request)
-+
- 
- class StaticFilesHandler(StaticFilesHandlerMixin, WSGIHandler):
-     """

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-12983.patch

@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-12983
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/utils/text.py
-+++ b/django/utils/text.py
-@@ -393,11 +393,13 @@ def slugify(value, allow_unicode=False):
-     Convert to ASCII if 'allow_unicode' is False. Convert spaces to hyphens.
-     Remove characters that aren't alphanumerics, underscores, or hyphens.
-     Convert to lowercase. Also strip leading and trailing whitespace.
-+    Strip leading and trailing dashes and underscores.
-     """
-     value = str(value)
-     if allow_unicode:
-         value = unicodedata.normalize('NFKC', value)
-     else:
-         value = unicodedata.normalize('NFKD', value).encode('ascii', 'ignore').decode('ascii')
-     value = re.sub(r'[^\w\s-]', '', value.lower()).strip()
--    return re.sub(r'[-\s]+', '-', value)
-+    value = re.sub(r'[-\s]+', '-', value)
-+    return value.strip('-_')

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13028.patch

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13028
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-@@ -1125,7 +1125,10 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
- 
-     def check_filterable(self, expression):
-         """Raise an error if expression cannot be used in a WHERE clause."""
--        if not getattr(expression, 'filterable', True):
-+        if (
-+            hasattr(expression, 'resolve_expression') and
-+            not getattr(expression, 'filterable', True)
-+        ):
-             raise NotSupportedError(
-                 expression.__class__.__name__ + ' is disallowed in the filter '
-                 'clause.'

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13033.patch

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13033
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on the architect's analysis, I can generate the patch. The issue is in `django/db/models/sql/compiler.py` around line 727 where the comparison `getattr(field, 'attname', None) != name` should use `pieces[-1]` instead of `name` to correctly identify when ordering by an FK's `_id` attribute.
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
-@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@
-                     # If the field is a foreign key, ordering by the foreign
-                     # key's `_id` attribute (attname) should not add the
-                     # related model's ordering.
--                    if getattr(field, 'attname', None) != name:
-+                    if getattr(field, 'attname', None) != pieces[-1]:
-                         order = self.query.standard_ordering and field.rel.get_related_field().model._meta.ordering and field.rel.get_related_field().model._meta.ordering[0] or ordering

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13158.patch

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13158
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/db/models/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/query.py
-@@ -912,6 +912,8 @@ class QuerySet:
- 
-     def none(self):
-         """Return an empty QuerySet."""
-+        self.query.combinator = None
-+        self.query.combined_queries = ()
-         clone = self._chain()
-         clone.query.set_empty()
-         return clone

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13220.patch

@@ -1,126 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13220
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-This is a Django repository issue, but the Django codebase isn't in this directory. Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase, I'll generate the patch for the `django/core/exceptions.py` file which contains the `ValidationError` class.
-
-```
---- a/django/core/exceptions.py
-+++ b/django/core/exceptions.py
-@@ -182,3 +182,56 @@ class ValidationError(Exception):
-             return repr(self.message)
-         return repr(self.messages)
- 
-+    def __eq__(self, other):
-+        if not isinstance(other, ValidationError):
-+            return NotImplemented
-+
-+        # Helper function to make a value hashable for comparison
-+        def make_hashable(value):
-+            if isinstance(value, dict):
-+                return frozenset(
-+                    (k, make_hashable(v)) for k, v in value.items()
-+                )
-+            elif isinstance(value, list):
-+                return frozenset(make_hashable(item) for item in value)
-+            else:
-+                return value
-+
-+        # Compare error_dict if both have it
-+        if hasattr(self, 'error_dict') and hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
-+            # Convert dict values to frozensets for order-independent comparison
-+            self_dict = {}
-+            other_dict = {}
-+            for key, value in self.error_dict.items():
-+                self_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
-+            for key, value in other.error_dict.items():
-+                other_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
-+            return self_dict == other_dict
-+        elif hasattr(self, 'error_dict') or hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
-+            return False
-+
-+        # Compare error_list - order independent
-+        if hasattr(self, 'error_list') and hasattr(other, 'error_list'):
-+            return (
-+                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in self.error_list) ==
-+                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in other.error_list)
-+            )
-+
-+        return False
-+
-+    def __ne__(self, other):
-+        result = self.__eq__(other)
-+        if result is NotImplemented:
-+            return result
-+        return not result
-+
-+    def __hash__(self):
-+        if hasattr(self, 'message'):
-+            return hash((self.message, self.code, make_hashable(self.params) if self.params else None))
-+        if hasattr(self, 'error_dict'):
-+            return hash(frozenset(self.error_dict.keys()))
-+        if hasattr(self, 'error_list'):
-+            return hash(tuple(sorted(str(e) for e in self.error_list)))
-+        return hash(id(self))
-```
-
-Wait, there's an issue with `__hash__` referencing `make_hashable` which is defined inside `__eq__`. Let me provide a corrected patch:
-
---- a/django/core/exceptions.py
-+++ b/django/core/exceptions.py
-@@ -182,3 +182,59 @@ class ValidationError(Exception):
-             return repr(self.message)
-         return repr(self.messages)
- 
-+    def __eq__(self, other):
-+        if not isinstance(other, ValidationError):
-+            return NotImplemented
-+
-+        # Helper function to make a value hashable for comparison
-+        def make_hashable(value):
-+            if isinstance(value, dict):
-+                return frozenset(
-+                    (k, make_hashable(v)) for k, v in value.items()
-+                )
-+            elif isinstance(value, list):
-+                return frozenset(make_hashable(item) for item in value)
-+            else:
-+                return value
-+
-+        # Compare error_dict if both have it
-+        if hasattr(self, 'error_dict') and hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
-+            # Convert dict values to frozensets for order-independent comparison
-+            self_dict = {}
-+            other_dict = {}
-+            for key, value in self.error_dict.items():
-+                self_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
-+            for key, value in other.error_dict.items():
-+                other_dict[key] = frozenset(make_hashable(v) for v in value)
-+            return self_dict == other_dict
-+        elif hasattr(self, 'error_dict') or hasattr(other, 'error_dict'):
-+            return False
-+
-+        # Compare error_list - order independent
-+        if hasattr(self, 'error_list') and hasattr(other, 'error_list'):
-+            return (
-+                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in self.error_list) ==
-+                frozenset(make_hashable(e) for e in other.error_list)
-+            )
-+
-+        return False
-+
-+    def __ne__(self, other):
-+        result = self.__eq__(other)
-+        if result is NotImplemented:
-+            return result
-+        return not result
-+
-+    def __hash__(self):
-+        # ValidationError is mutable, so we make it unhashable
-+        # This is consistent with the default behavior when __eq__ is defined
-+        # and __hash__ is not explicitly set to a non-None value.
-+        # However, since Exception base class has __hash__, we need to
-+        # explicitly disable it.
-+        raise TypeError(
-+            "unhashable type: 'ValidationError'"
-+        )

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13230.patch

@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13230
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/contrib/syndication/views.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/syndication/views.py
-@@ -89,6 +89,9 @@ class Feed:
-     def item_pubdate(self, item):
-         return None
- 
-+    def item_comments(self, item):
-+        return None
-+
-     def item_extra_kwargs(self, item):
-         """
-         Return an extra keyword arguments dictionary that is used with
-@@ -171,6 +174,7 @@ class Feed:
-             author_email=author_email,
-             author_link=author_link,
-             categories=self._get_dynamic_attr("item_categories", item),
-+            comments=self._get_dynamic_attr("item_comments", item),
-             item_copyright=self._get_dynamic_attr("item_copyright", item),
-             **self.item_extra_kwargs(item),
-         )

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13265.patch

@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13265
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on my knowledge of Django's migration autodetector, I can generate the patch. The issue is that `AlterOrderWithRespectTo` creates the `_order` field, but `AddIndex` operations that reference `_order` are being generated before it. The fix needs to ensure proper dependency ordering.
-
-```
---- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
-@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
-+import re
- from django.conf import settings
- from django.db import models
- from django.db.migrations import operations
-@@ -231,6 +232,21 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
-                             ),
-                         )
-                     )
-+                # Depend on AlterOrderWithRespectTo if the index contains _order
-+                if any(field_name == '_order' or field_name.lstrip('-') == '_order' for field_name in index.fields):
-+                    self.add_dependency(
-+                        op,
-+                        (app_label, model_name, None, 'order_wrt_changed'),
-+                    )
-+                    # Also add dependency for the model itself since _order
-+                    # is created by order_with_respect_to
-+                    for model_state in self.to_state.models.get((app_label, model_name), []):
-+                        pass  # Model existence is already handled above
-         self.add_operation(
-             app_label,
-             operations.AddIndex(
-@@ -1081,6 +1097,8 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
-                     (app_label, model_name, order_with_respect_to, True),
-                     (app_label, model_name, None, True),
-                 )
-+            # Provide order_wrt_changed dependency for indexes on _order
-+            self._add_dependencies_for_order_wrt(app_label, model_name)
-         self.add_operation(
-             app_label,
-             operations.AlterOrderWithRespectTo(
-```
-
-Let me reconsider the Django codebase structure and provide a correct patch:
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
-@@ -1040,6 +1040,19 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
-                 ),
-                 dependencies=dependencies,
-             )
-+            # Add dependency for indexes that reference the _order field.
-+            # The _order field is created by AlterOrderWithRespectTo, so any
-+            # AddIndex operations that include _order must depend on this operation.
-+            for (idx_app_label, idx_model_name), alt_indexes in self.altered_indexes.items():
-+                if idx_app_label == app_label and idx_model_name == model_name:
-+                    for index in alt_indexes.get('added_indexes', []):
-+                        if '_order' in index.fields or any(
-+                            f.lstrip('-') == '_order' for f in index.fields
-+                        ):
-+                            self.add_dependency(
-+                                (app_label, model_name, index.name, 'add_index'),
-+                                (app_label, model_name, None, 'order_wrt_changed'),
-+                            )
- 
-     def generate_altered_db_table(self):
-         models_to_check = self.kept_model_keys.union(
-
-Actually, let me provide the correct fix based on how Django's autodetector actually works with dependencies:
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
-@@ -226,6 +226,15 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
-                     )
-                 for index in indexes:
-                     self.add_operation(
-                         app_label,
-                         operations.AddIndex(
-                             model_name=model_name,
-                             index=index,
-                         ),
-+                        dependencies=[
-+                            (app_label, model_name, None, "order_wrt_changed")
-+                        ] if any(
-+                            f == '_order' or f.lstrip('-') == '_order'
-+                            for f in index.fields
-+                        ) else [],
-                     )

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13315.patch

@@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13315
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
---- a/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-@@ -1055,6 +1055,10 @@ class ForeignKey(ForeignObject):
-             "queryset": self.remote_field.model._default_manager.using(using),
-             "to_field_name": self.remote_field.field_name,
-         }
-+        if self.remote_field.limit_choices_to:
-+            # Use distinct() to avoid duplicate options when limit_choices_to
-+            # involves a join that can multiply rows.
-+            defaults["queryset"] = defaults["queryset"].distinct()
-         defaults.update(kwargs)
-         return super().formfield(**defaults)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-13321.patch

@@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
-# django__django-13321
-# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
-# Attempts: 1
-
-Based on the architect's analysis and the traceback, I can generate the patch. The issue is in `django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py` where the `_legacy_decode()` method doesn't handle `binascii.Error` when calling `base64.b64decode()`.
-
-```
---- a/django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
-@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
-+import binascii
- import base64
- import hashlib
- import logging
-@@ -123,7 +124,12 @@ class SessionBase:
-             return self._legacy_decode(session_data)
- 
-     def _legacy_decode(self, session_data):
--        encoded_data = base64.b64decode(session_data.encode('ascii'))
-+        try:
-+            encoded_data = base64.b64decode(session_data.encode('ascii'))
-+        except binascii.Error:
-+            # Invalid base64 data
-+            logger.warning('Session data corrupted')
-+            return {}
-         # could produce ValueError if there is no ':'
-         hash, serialized = encoded_data.split(b':', 1)
-         expected_hash = self._hash(serialized)
-```