Run the builder-owned pre-review verification pass for a completed change using repo guardrails and real-surface evidence. Use a separate evaluator for complex, subjective, or high-risk work; when the repo is not verifiable, report blocked with the exact missing infrastructure and required setup.
94
95%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.04xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
{
"context": "Tests whether the agent actually starts the server and makes real HTTP requests to verify behavior — not just reads/analyzes the source code — and whether the report follows evidence rules: exact commands recorded, real responses captured, failure paths exercised, surfaces named, success kept terse, findings tied to impact, and a valid verdict produced.",
"type": "weighted_checklist",
"checklist": [
{
"name": "Server started and queried",
"description": "Report shows evidence that the server was actually started (e.g. references to starting the process) and that HTTP requests were made to localhost:9127 — not just a static code review",
"max_score": 15
},
{
"name": "Real HTTP client used",
"description": "Verification used curl or an equivalent real HTTP client (e.g. httpx, requests, wget) to exercise the server — not just calling Python functions directly or importing the module",
"max_score": 12
},
{
"name": "Actual response captured",
"description": "Report includes actual HTTP response body content and status codes (e.g. '200 OK', '404', JSON response body) received from the live server",
"max_score": 10
},
{
"name": "Error/failure path exercised",
"description": "At least one error or failure path was tested (e.g. requesting a non-existent user ID, sending malformed JSON to POST /users, or requesting an unknown route) and the response is documented",
"max_score": 12
},
{
"name": "Exact surfaces named",
"description": "Report names the specific endpoints exercised (e.g. GET /users, GET /users/1, POST /users, GET /users/999) — not just 'the API was tested'",
"max_score": 10
},
{
"name": "Exact commands recorded",
"description": "Report includes the actual commands run (e.g. the curl command lines with flags and URLs), not just a prose description of what was done",
"max_score": 10
},
{
"name": "Success kept terse",
"description": "Report does NOT include verbose output from successful requests (e.g. does not dump full response headers for every passing call); successful checks are summarized briefly",
"max_score": 8
},
{
"name": "Finding tied to impact",
"description": "At least one finding or observation in the report explains what could break, who is affected, or why it matters — not just a description of the behavior observed",
"max_score": 8
},
{
"name": "Valid verdict",
"description": "Report contains a verdict using exactly one of: 'ready for review', 'needs more work', or 'blocked'. It does not use 'ship it' or make a ship-or-not decision.",
"max_score": 15
},
{
"name": "Compact verification footer",
"description": "Report keeps the final verification footer to no more than 5 labeled lines, does not repeat detailed response bodies after recording them once, and summarizes successful evidence by command or surface name",
"max_score": 8
}
]
}