legreffier-eval

name	legreffier-eval
description	Evaluate rendered packs against scenarios and author new gap-test scenarios with adversarial baseline gating. Use when asked to "write evals", "create gap-test scenarios", "evaluate the pack", "test the context", "rewrite eval scenarios", or "validate eval baselines". Uses subagent isolation to prevent context leaks between authoring and validation.

LeGreffier Eval

Evaluate rendered packs against eval scenarios, and author new scenarios that prove context pack value. Two modes: run (measure pack delta) and author (write + validate gap-test scenarios).

Why subagent isolation matters

An agent that writes a scenario knows the trap it designed. When it estimates baselines, it projects what it thinks the model will miss — not what actually happens. This produces fabricated baselines that collapse when measured.

The fix: the agent that writes the scenario never runs the baseline. A separate subagent with no knowledge of the trap's design runs the eval binary and reports raw numbers. The author sees the score, not the reasoning.

Prerequisites

Eval runner

The eval runner ships with @themoltnet/cli:

$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --help

Key flags:

# Baseline (no context)
$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path>

# With rendered pack (runs both variants, reports delta)
$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path> --pack <rendered-pack.md>

# Override agent/judge/model
$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path> \
  --agent claude-code --judge claude-code \
  -m anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6

# Parallel with/without variants
$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path> --pack <pack.md> --concurrency 2

Scenario file structure

evals/<suite>/<scenario-name>/
├── eval.json                  # Mode + fixture injection
├── task.md                    # What the agent under test sees
├── criteria.json              # Weighted checklist (scores must sum to 100)
├── rewrite-log.md             # Author's intent log (NOT committed)
└── fixtures/                  # Files injected into the eval worktree
    └── *.ts, *.go, etc.

See references/scenario-format.md for file format details and examples.

When to trigger

• After legreffier-explore produces a rendered pack
• When user asks "how good is this pack", "evaluate the pack", "test the context"
• When writing or rewriting eval scenarios
• Before pinning a rendered pack

Mode 1: Run (evaluate a pack)

Inputs

• Rendered pack path or ID
• Scenario paths (one or more)

Steps

1. If given a pack ID instead of a file, render it locally:

   $MOLTNET_CLI pack render --preview <pack-id> --out /tmp/pack.md
   

2. Run evals — spawn a validate subagent per scenario (see Subagent contracts). Run subagents in parallel when scenarios are independent.

3. Collect results into a delta report:

   Scenario	Baseline	With pack	Delta
   scenario-a	20%	75%	+55%
   scenario-b	90%	95%	+5%

4. Record results as a diary entry if DIARY_ID is available:

   • episodic for surprising results (large delta, regression, 0% with-context)
   • semantic for stable findings about pack quality
   • Tags: scope:evals, scope:context-packs, eval:efficiency

5. Recommend refinements if specific criteria consistently fail with-context.

Mode 2: Author (write gap-test scenarios)

The authoring loop

Read references/gap-test-principles.md before starting. It contains the five design principles and anti-patterns derived from real failures.

The loop uses an AUTHOR subagent for writing and the ORCHESTRATOR (main session) for baseline validation:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  Orchestrator                    │
│  (this conversation — coordinates, gates, logs)  │
│                                                  │
│  0. DISCOVER (vivo only)                         │
│     → browses diary for seed entries             │
│     → follows relations to commits               │
│     → validates fixture.ref                      │
│     → gathers context for AUTHOR                 │
│                                                  │
│  1. Spawns AUTHOR subagent(s)                    │
│     → receives scenario files + rewrite-log      │
│     → for vivo: also receives discovery output   │
│     → writes files, does NOT run evals           │
│     → multiple authors can run in parallel       │
│                                                  │
│  2. VALIDATE step (orchestrator runs directly)   │
│     → runs eval command in main session          │
│     → the orchestrator did not author the         │
│       scenario (that was the subagent), so the   │
│       measurement is not self-graded             │
│     → returns: raw score + per-criteria pass/fail │
│                                                  │
│  3. Orchestrator compares intent vs result        │
│  4. Gates on baseline score                      │
│  5. If gate fails: spawns AUTHOR again with      │
│     score (not criteria breakdown) + iteration #  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

**Why the orchestrator validates, not a subagent:** Subagents inherit
restricted permissions and typically cannot run bash commands. The
orchestrator has bash access and — critically — did not author the
scenario. The authoring happened in a subagent with its own context,
so the orchestrator's measurement is not self-graded.

**Stronger isolation (optional):** The human can run the eval commands
themselves and paste the scores back. This is the cleanest separation
but slower. Use when you want maximum confidence in baselines.

Step 0: Discover fixture.ref (vivo scenarios only)

Skip this step for vitro scenarios. For vivo scenarios, the orchestrator discovers the fixture.ref commit and gathers context from diary entries before spawning the AUTHOR subagent.

Two discovery paths: diary-first (browse incidents/decisions → follow relations to commits → validate ref) and git-first (search git for a code state → check for diary trailers). Both converge at a validated ref

• scenario seed content.

See references/fixture-ref-discovery.md for the full procedure with bash examples.

Step 1: Spawn AUTHOR subagent

The author subagent receives:

• Full project context (diary entries, rendered pack, codebase)
• The gap-test design principles (from references/)
• The gold standard scenario (evals/moltnet-practices/dbos-after-commit/)
• If rewriting: the current scenario files + previous iteration's score (score only, NOT which criteria passed/failed)

The author subagent produces:

• task.md, criteria.json, eval.json, fixtures/*
• An intent declaration in rewrite-log.md:

## Iteration N

### Intent

- **Trap**: what incorrect pattern am I tempting the model toward?
- **Leak closed** (if rewrite): what hint did I remove vs previous iteration?
- **Expected failure**: which criteria should the model fail, and why?
- **Knowledge required**: what specific knowledge is needed that isn't
  in the fixtures?

The author subagent does NOT:

• Run any eval commands
• Estimate or project baseline scores
• Access previous iteration's criteria breakdown

Step 2: Validate (orchestrator runs baseline)

The orchestrator runs the eval command directly in the main session. This is safe because the orchestrator did not author the scenario — it was written by a subagent in a separate context.

Run at least 2 times for the gate check:

$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path>
$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path>

After each run, read the trial_result.json from the output directory (path printed by the command) and record:

Run 1: 55% — passed: [criterion_a, criterion_d], failed: [criterion_b, criterion_c]
Run 2: 70% — passed: [criterion_a, criterion_b, criterion_d], failed: [criterion_c]

The orchestrator does NOT consult the rewrite-log before running baselines. Read the rewrite-log only AFTER collecting scores, during the gate check (Step 3).

Step 3: Gate check

The orchestrator (this conversation) applies the gate:

Mean baseline	Action
≤ 60%	PASS — scenario is a valid gap-test. Proceed to with-context validation.
61-80%	MARGINAL — compare author's expected failures vs actual. If the model passed criteria the author expected it to fail, the scenario leaks information. Rewrite.
> 80%	FAIL — the model already knows the answer. Rewrite.

Step 4: Iterate or accept

If the gate fails, spawn a new AUTHOR subagent with:

• The iteration number
• The aggregate score (e.g., "mean 75% across 2 runs")
• NOT the per-criteria breakdown (to prevent reverse-engineering the judge)
• The previous rewrite-log (so the author can see its own intent history)

If the gate passes, optionally run with-context validation:

$MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path> --pack <rendered-pack.md>

• A positive delta (baseline → with-pack improvement ≥ 15 points) confirms the pack contains knowledge the scenario tests

Step 5: Finalize

When a scenario passes the gate:

1. Remove rewrite-log.md (process artifact, not committed)
2. Commit the scenario files
3. Record the measured baseline + delta in a diary entry

Information flow diagram

AUTHOR (subagent):                 ORCHESTRATOR (main session):
──────────────────                 ──────────────────────────
✓ Project context                  ✗ Project context (doesn't read it for eval)
✓ Diary entries                    ✗ Diary entries (doesn't consult them)
✓ Rendered pack                    ✓ Rendered pack (only for with-context runs)
✓ Gap-test principles              ✓ Gate rules + rewrite-log (after scoring)
✓ Gold standard scenario           ✓ Scenario files (reads after author writes)
✓ Previous score (aggregate only)  ✓ Per-criteria breakdown (from eval output)
✓ Discovery output (vivo only)     ✓ Eval command + bash access
✗ Per-criteria breakdown           ✓ Discovery (diary + git, vivo only)
✗ Eval commands                    ✗ Author's intent (until after scoring)

Subagent contracts

AUTHOR subagent prompt template

See references/author-subagent-prompt.md for the full template. Key constraints:

• Must produce an intent declaration before writing files
• Must NOT run eval commands or estimate scores
• Must follow gap-test design principles from references/

Gold standard reference

evals/moltnet-practices/dbos-after-commit/ — scores 20% baseline.

Properties that make it work:

• TODOs placed inside the transaction callback (the wrong location)
• Task never mentions "separate connections" or "DBOS"
• 60% of score requires naming specific systems and failure modes
• Fixture shows only the intuitive (wrong) pattern
• Criteria context explains what's being tested (judge-only, not visible to agent under test)

Study this before writing new scenarios.

Recording results

When DIARY_ID is available, record eval results as diary entries:

After pack evaluation (run mode):

entry_type: episodic (if delta > 20% or delta < 0)
entry_type: semantic (if stable, expected results)
tags: [scope:evals, scope:context-packs, eval:efficiency, pack:<pack-id>]
importance: 7 (surprising results) or 5 (expected results)

After scenario authoring:

entry_type: procedural
tags: [scope:evals, eval:gap-test-design, branch:<current-branch>]
importance: 6
content: scenario name, measured baseline, iteration count, key design choices

Phases (from #566)

This skill implements Phase 1 (local skill). Later phases:

• Phase 2 (after #523): Store eval sessions via API, query historical scores, compare pack versions over time
• Phase 3: Use eval deltas to recommend compile parameter changes, A/B test token budgets and tag filters