OrgX · The Receipt

Your agent shipped. Can you prove the work cleared a bar?

This page is a receipt: a real quality bar, a real miss, the judge’s criticism, and the iteration that cleared it.

ops · operator briefAug 12, 06:23 UTC

Ops Operator Brief Validation — PR description unblock (v2)

  1. The bar

    Accept only at 0.75 or above — compiled into a weighted rubric:

    Score 0-1 on: current state (0.20), risk/decision clarity (0.20), budget or reliability impact (0.25), owner (0.15), next action (0.20).

  2. The miss · Aug 12, 06:22 UTC

    Scored 0.82 — below the bar. The judge said why:

    - It does not actually specify the downstream contract details it says must be extracted (expected artifact_type and required fields).

  3. Cleared · Aug 12, 06:23 UTC

    0.80 — passed the bar and moved on. No human had to babysit the retry.

Full eval record — every attempt, every run id

Rubric
Score 0-1 on: current state (0.20), risk/decision clarity (0.20), budget or reliability impact (0.25), owner (0.15), next action (0.20).

Attempt 10.83 · passedAug 12, 06:22 UTC · 2.2s

- Current state (0.20): 0.17 — Clear purpose and acknowledges missing specifics (expected downstream contract details, artifact ID, error l…

run 8ee1d0c0-e8a7-4dc1-ab99-9fd685a6ecfb
Attempt 20.86 · passedAug 12, 06:22 UTC · 3.0s

The artifact is well-structured and directly addresses the stated dependency (“Write and save PR description artifact”) by adding concrete…

run 041a5a73-de5c-4888-9dea-d606fd783921
Attempt 30.82 · failedAug 12, 06:22 UTC · 2.2s

- It does not actually specify the downstream contract details it says must be extracted (expected artifact_type and required fields).

run b5bef7ed-2990-4631-b3e6-1ab74223fc11
Attempt 40.85 · passedAug 12, 06:22 UTC · 2.2s

- Current state (0.20): 0.16 — Clearly states the initiative and that required missing context is not provided (artifact ID / expected down…

run bb003035-2029-4b02-943e-ed79675e0a3f
Attempt 50.86 · passedAug 12, 06:22 UTC · 2.2s

Gaps/risks: (1) While it instructs to extract expected `artifact_type` and `required_fields_list`, the artifact itself does not include any…

run bcd63a08-ebd3-463e-b4d2-ac965bea4435
Attempt 60.80 · passedAug 12, 06:23 UTC · 2.7s

- Current state (0.20): 0.16 — Clearly states what is known (missing expected artifact ID/contract/schema and provider error lines) and wha…

run 97242285-5c26-4860-a30c-f7dec5adb89f

Every number below comes from the eval record that produced it.

The range — same bar, different work
eng · document
eng pull request artifact0.18
1.9s judge · 2 evals
Attempt 10.18 · failedAug 12, 00:05 UTC · 1.9s

However, it does not actually deliver the required `eng.pull_request` (or `eng.structured_blocker`) with the concrete “next command/action,…

run 3117e7fb-e2cf-4810-8354-ac9f7eb1c10c
Attempt 20.28 · failedAug 12, 00:05 UTC · 1.9s

However, it does **not** deliver the requested core outcome of an actual **eng.pull_request** (or a concrete **eng.structured_blocker** wit…

run 99dc0957-c9d4-4eb5-a772-d9256d9f58c1
marketing · launch asset
Marketing Launch Asset (Day 1) — Hope Draft: Pain Tweet + Reply Seeding (Drafted Only)0.65
2.5s judge · 5 evals

Rubric
Score 0-1 on: audience specificity (0.20), channel fit (0.20), asset usefulness (0.25), hypothesis and metric (0.20), review/publish status (0.15).

Attempt 10.74 · failedAug 12, 00:06 UTC · 2.9s

- The pain topic is clear (verification/receipts for autonomous work), but there’s no tight target persona (e.g., role/industry) and it sta…

run 21b8710c-add2-4c8d-b20c-af005d6b5023
Attempt 20.86 · passedAug 12, 00:06 UTC · 2.2s

Gaps / risks: The artifact references WS1/WS3 in the decision request but does not include those constraints or map them to the checklist,…

run 3dd40b39-a3ad-41e5-b999-9e662dbcaaf9
Attempt 30.88 · passedAug 12, 00:06 UTC · 1.6s

Minor gaps/risks that slightly lower the score: (1) The draft includes a branded/internal reference (“Revenue Spine” / “notary loop”) which…

run 607aa8b3-adc1-42d3-b05e-1e5f56dec387
Attempt 40.87 · passedAug 12, 00:06 UTC · 1.9s

Gaps/risks preventing a perfect score: (1) The artifact references WS1/WS3 in the decision request but does not explicitly show those const…

run b958e61b-f588-4a13-a46a-9609b40f889d
Attempt 50.65 · failedAug 12, 00:06 UTC · 2.5s

Overall: The artifact is a solid Day-1 X organic draft with built-in approval/attribution safety, but it’s somewhat generic and lacks expli…

run 433b55ac-af12-405a-a388-927948bbfc26
ops · operator brief
Ops Operator Brief (Validation): Unblock 'Write & save PR description artifact'0.86
2.0s judge · 5 evals

Rubric
Score 0-1 on: current state (0.20), risk/decision clarity (0.20), budget or reliability impact (0.25), owner (0.15), next action (0.20).

Attempt 10.95 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 2.7s

Minor deductions are for a couple of checklist/precision gaps rather than missing fundamentals.

run c6f86b4a-d150-4840-ab20-9992a27b275e
Attempt 20.90 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 1.6s

It clearly defines a guardrail (pre-flight quota/billing check before any LLM call), explicitly prevents cross-provider fallback loops, and…

run 6230f9ee-9d1a-49a0-9547-09e15f29e7a0
Attempt 30.86 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 1.7s

The artifact is strong and largely satisfies the purpose of an ops operator brief: it clearly states the goal (unblock writing/saving the P…

run 6d8042d0-2a75-430f-87cb-65d4722ae836
Attempt 40.90 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 2.1s

- Defines fail-fast behavior: provides a structured blocker template for the “both providers exhausted” case.

run 75d89da5-91db-4ad3-83de-6bc66426c3ca
Attempt 50.93 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 2.0s

- Budget or reliability impact (0.25/0.25): Directly links fail-fast to reduced wasted credits/latency and clearer failure causes.

run df1076c9-510e-43c7-b04f-b3f299ac5a89
design · document
purpose-first artifact template — Feedback pack (Revenue Spine) v2 (a11y + evidence minimums)0.88
3.8s judge · 4 evals

Rubric
Score 0-1 on: surface specificity (0.20), finding/spec quality (0.25), accessibility notes (0.20), implementation guidance (0.20), validation notes (0.15).

Attempt 10.92 · passedAug 12, 00:09 UTC · 2.7s

- Validation notes (0.15): Solid but slightly less measurable than the others.

run 259a2b56-b3f2-48f4-93f5-4957b9b678b4
Attempt 20.93 · passedAug 12, 00:10 UTC · 2.7s

- The artifact specifies “one H1, then H2 for the three purpose-first sections,” but the template itself uses only H2/H3 headings in Markdo…

run 342aa4d1-86a1-49b3-9486-c59779145763
Attempt 30.92 · passedAug 12, 00:10 UTC · 2.0s

Minor issues preventing a perfect score: (1) the “one H1, then H2” requirement conflicts slightly with the markdown which uses multiple H2/…

run 36fd082d-1c8a-4e6d-90d1-036d7473159a
Attempt 40.88 · passedAug 12, 00:10 UTC · 3.8s

- The document says “one H1, then H2 for the three purpose-first sections,” but the template itself is in markdown with multiple headings;…

run dd1562c6-1226-4433-83b1-f13dfc70f7fe
sales · deal reviewfailed → cleared
10-Account Convergence Slate Draft (with evidence + routing) — NO SENDS [Eval-Safe]0.86
2.1s judge · 4 evals

Rubric
Score 0-1 on: ICP clarity (0.18), target segment (0.16), offer (0.18), sequence (0.18), objections (0.15), next-send plan (0.15).

Attempt 10.68 · failedAug 12, 00:08 UTC · 3.4s

Overall: Good internal-only slate with evidence, deduping, and routing; however, several rubric gaps reduce effectiveness—especially around…

run 8debd3d3-16d0-465b-bd10-1d5755de1622
Attempt 20.86 · passedAug 12, 00:09 UTC · 2.0s

Main gaps: (1) reviewer separation is described in the header but not concretely instantiated with named reviewers/ownership fields per acc…

run 320c1b2f-0ae7-4179-a215-ce97a9af0c4e
Attempt 30.86 · passedAug 12, 00:09 UTC · 1.8s

Also includes a Shaurya receipt block indicating missing receipt is not to be invented, which is a good compliance safeguard.

run 354f7515-d769-42fb-ade6-744cfe26a312
Attempt 40.86 · passedAug 12, 00:09 UTC · 2.1s

Gaps/risks reducing the score: the artifact references “account_id matches the queue CSV” but no explicit account_id/IDs are provided (only…

run 368eaa5e-caba-452f-b664-81270c9fdde2
product · structured blocker
Customer Discovery Validation — Blocked (Missing initiative/workstream + target customer/problem inputs)0.95
2.3s judge · 5 evals

Rubric
Score 0-1 on: exact blocker (0.30), evidence or missing input (0.25), owner/escalation clarity (0.20), next action (0.25).

Attempt 10.98 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 4.2s

- The title and exact_reason clearly state why the customer discovery validation cannot be completed honestly, specifically citing the miss…

run 2322372b-00c4-426d-afe0-0c8b202cec07
Attempt 20.92 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 1.6s

It clearly states why the work cannot be completed honestly, provides an explicit list of missing inputs, includes what was attempted, and…

run 459e0f5e-af4d-46e0-b2b3-68e53ad26176
Attempt 30.90 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 9.4s

The artifact is a high-quality structured blocker: it clearly states the objective, marks status as blocked, provides specific, actionable…

run 89ee8a98-0e23-4d57-9f37-287123ed062c
Attempt 40.88 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 3.0s

It includes (a) a specific title, (b) concrete reasons tied to missing inputs (canonical workstream hierarchy + target customer/problem def…

run ddcbc6d7-e39b-4550-b13d-b8608bfabe3d
Attempt 50.95 · passedAug 13, 06:21 UTC · 2.3s

- Clearly states why customer discovery validation cannot be completed honestly (missing canonical workstream hierarchy + missing target cu…

run c6037b39-46df-4bcf-abaa-9b09a0f6a608

Prefer the unedited version? Open a live room, warts and all.

Pulled from the live eval record · refreshes every 5 minutes · Aug 13, 21:49 UTC