Publish the one-task proof-of-concept results page - #59
Conversation
jq -R reads no lines from empty input, so a condition with no critics emitted nothing and the manifest's --argjson rejected it. Every solo arm died before its first model call. The roster now comes from an argument, and a dry-run assertion covers the empty case the H/I tests did not reach. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The page hardcoded "Seven configurations, five tasks" and a caveat sized to a five-task subset, so any other suite rendered prose that contradicted its own table. Counts now come from the data, and a one-task run says in its own voice that it is a proof of concept rather than leaving a reader to infer it from the denominator. Codex phase counts were doubled: each phase writes both a transcript and a stderr log, and every .log was counted. pages.yml deploys only what is committed under benchmarks/site/public/. It runs no benchmark and recomputes no number, so the diff a reviewer sees is what goes live. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Nine configurations on pallets__flask-5014, all nine resolved by the official evaluator with no infrastructure failures. The point is that the pipeline runs end to end, not the scores: one task cannot separate two arms, and the page says so above the table. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: dd6cbbad0e
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "report_file": "benchmarks/results/code/evaluation/co-evolution-condition-G.code-bench-20260901T160000Z.json" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "caveat": "Frozen five-task probe of SWE-bench Verified, scored by the official evaluator. One task is 20 points; these numbers are not comparable to published full-500 SWE-bench Verified scores." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This committed payload identifies a one-task suite, but its caveat still describes a five-task probe where each task is worth 20 points. render-page.py emits this field in the footer, so the page being deployed contradicts the new one-task warning at the top; generate this text from suite.task_count and regenerate both public artifacts.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| 'Proof of concept: one SWE-bench Verified task, not a score. This run exists ' | ||
| 'to show that every configuration executes end to end and reaches the official ' | ||
| 'evaluator. A single task cannot separate two pipelines, and no row here should ' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a one-task page is generated from a partially completed results directory, build-site-data.py still creates rows with measured and attempted false and the renderer displays them as not run, but this unconditional sentence claims every configuration executed and reached the evaluator. Base the claim on the measured/attempted rows, or only emit it after confirming all configurations completed.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Nine Co-Evolution configurations ran against one SWE-bench Verified task
(
pallets__flask-5014). All nine resolved under the official evaluator inDocker, with zero infrastructure failures. This PR publishes that result and the
workflow that deploys it.
This is a proof that the pipeline works, not a measurement. One task cannot
separate two configurations, and every arm solved it. The page says that above
the table rather than leaving a reader to infer it from a denominator of one.
Two bugs the run exposed
Codex went silently inert. Codex 0.144.5 on Windows accepts
--sandbox workspace-writeand then enforces read-only. Arm B produced a patch,a prediction, and a fluent review while changing nothing — Claude's patch passed
through untouched under a label claiming Codex had repaired it. Arm E failed
loudly instead, with no patch at all. Both were rerun with the elevated sandbox
the README already prescribes for throwaway clones; the mode is recorded per
cell and the page's integrity section names which arms used which.
Codex phase counts were doubled. Each phase writes a transcript and a stderr
log, and the aggregator counted every
.log.Page changes
The renderer hardcoded "Seven configurations, five pinned tasks" and a caveat
sized to a five-task subset, so any other suite rendered prose contradicting its
own table. Counts now come from the data.
pages.ymldeploys only what is committed underbenchmarks/site/public/. Itruns no benchmark and recomputes no number, so the diff a reviewer sees is what
goes live.
Verification
bash tests/run-all.sh --jobs 4: 42/42 suites passed in 829s. All nineprediction files validate. The page was built from a clean working tree at
harness commit
e7c5953, and every number on it names the evaluator report itcame from.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code