Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

ADF judge: bounded decision-model agreement experiment (current judge vs Jev vs Levanto Sage vs local)

Aperta
#965 2 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
30/100
Tipo di issue
Funzionalità
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
rust
Ambito
ai, testing-qa

Direzione di ricerca

Start with the claude-api build-eval discipline and trace the current ADF judge plus the llm-proxy typesafe::/jev:: adapter. Check how a backend using the /v1/systemone shape could be invoked, then define the sampled cases, permutations, duplicate runs, noise floor, Wilson CIs, and cost-per-task measurements. Done means reporting agreement, cost, permutation swing, and a keep/trial/drop recommendation for every arm.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

Goal

A bounded experiment on one ADF judge decision: does a typed decision model agree with the current reasoned verdict, and what does each option cost per completed task (not per call)?

Arms

  1. The current ADF judge verdict (baseline).
  2. TypeSafe Jev Choice (already reachable through the llm-proxy typesafe:: / jev:: adapter).
  3. Levanto Sage choice / yesno, on its free tier (100 decisions a month), with reasoning: "off" and "on" as separate conditions.
  4. A local open-weights backend (openjev-sglang or AnyJev), if one is available on the same /v1/systemone shape.

Method

Build the eval with the claude-api build-eval discipline:

  • Cases sampled from real judge inputs; hard cases chosen by a human, not by current failures.
  • Permute the option order for every decision-model arm. A permutation swing larger than the arm-to-arm difference invalidates that arm's result.
  • Run each grader twice to measure its flip rate.
  • State the noise floor before comparing arms. Report agreement with Wilson CIs, not point estimates.

Out of scope

Replacing the reasoned judge. Neither vendor returns a justification: Sage's meta.reasoning is telemetry only. So a decision-model verdict cannot satisfy the requirement that verdicts be auditable. This experiment measures agreement and cost only.

Acceptance

  • Agreement and cost per task for each arm, with CIs and the permutation swing.
  • A written recommendation: keep, trial, or drop.

Related

  • Lane-policy decision for metered classifiers (separate issue).

Mirror of Gitea terraphim/terraphim-ai#3418 (source of truth).

Lingua principale
Rust
Stelle
65
Fork
5
Merge medio
1h 17m
PR unite (30g)
2

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di terraphim/terraphim-ai

Tutte le issue di terraphim/terraphim-ai

Issue simili

Altre issue su Rust

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.