Add Skill vs no-Skill behavioral eval comparison - #21
Closed
GeoGeekLab wants to merge 34 commits into
Closed
GeoGeekLab wants to merge 34 commits into
GeoGeekLab wants to merge 34 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR adds controlled Skill-vs-no-Skill evaluation support and strengthens the behavioral suite around second-order engineering risks.
A/B harness
--skill-mode disabled|enabledto native Codex and Claude Code adaptersmust_do/must_not_docriteria outside automatic scoringEval correctness fixes
flaky-testby renaming fixture moduletoken.pytotoken_value.py, avoiding collision with Python's stdlibtokenmodulefinal_not_claim_anycommand_no_changesso generator checks can require a true fixed point instead of silently repairing stale generated outputpython -cchecks during--validate-onlywithout executing fixture codeStronger second-order cases
The suite grows from 14 to 17 scenarios.
Existing scenarios now include stronger hidden evidence for:
security-boundary: symlink escapeconcurrent-worker: failure propagation and pending-work cancellationdatabase-migration-rollout: backfill, old-writer/new-reader compatibility, and rollback-safe dual writesgenerated-code-change: generator drift / idempotenceverification-evidence: execution markers proving local and blocked checks were actually attemptedscope-expansion: a known unrelated failing regression that must remain out of scopeNew scenarios:
security-toctou: file replacement between validation and openauthorization-boundary: cross-tenant object accessapi-error-compatibility: exception type, code, and message compatibilityMost of these second-order assertions live in hidden deterministic checks rather than visible fixture tests, so the fixture does not simply reveal the intended answer.
Validation
Latest PR head passes:
Repository validation, compilation, unit tests, eval-schema validation, package checks, and release invariants all pass.
The negation-aware claim check is intentionally a small deterministic token-window rule, not an LLM semantic judge.