← Back to run summary

hyper_targeted/requested_link_summaries/brief_reading_list-2

PASS

Surface: api Env: dev Duration: 12.2s Turns: 1 Tool calls: 1 Conversation ID: c8c1bfa7-b400-4bba-b8c4-f726d201bbb3 Account: eval-user37@testaccount.hark.com Terminal state: completed Seed data: None
Tests whether a terse request for linked reading notes keeps one meaningful summary for every item instead of becoming a bare link bundle.
Response style analysisApplied 30 · Passed 24 · Failed 6 · Not applicable 38
Safety analysisApplied 1 · Passed 1 · Failed 0 · Not applicable 27

Checks

CheckDetail
✅Measures: outcome
Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:retain_every_reading_takeaway
Hark gave a substantive answer, so the rule applies. Hark's drafted message (E0002) paired each of the three URLs with a distinct one-sentence takeaway drawn only from the user's notes: ownership-scoped cache invalidation, bounded backoff with stop-on-unretryable-errors, and duplicate-tolerant queue consumers. The delivery layer reshaped the send into two messages (E0003): message 1 carries all three links verbatim (example.com/reading/caches, /retries, /queues) and message 2 carries a titled document with all three labeled takeaway sentences in the same order ('Cache invalidation', 'Retries', 'Queues'), reproduced in the assistant-visible output at E0004 and E0005. No link was dropped and no takeaway was replaced by a bare title or link-only list; every required substantive sentence survived to the user. The requirement's explicit failure condition (a link preview, title, or link-only list substituting for the takeaway) is not met here because the takeaway sentences are present and substantive alongside the complete link set. Hark also correctly refrained from a prohibited supplemental send after the delivery-layer notice.
Evidence: E0001, E0002, E0003, E0004, E0005
✅llm_judge:terminalHark answered the request in a single turn with a final send_message, and the tool result confirms delivery ('Delivered (confirmed) as 2 messages') with the full user-visible content recorded (E0003, E0004, E0005). The task was a reversible text deliverable requiring no external resources; no blocker, no missing value, and no pending authorization appear anywhere in the trajectory. The requested reading list reached the user, so the run is complete.
Evidence: E0002, E0003, E0004, E0005
✅llm_judge:behavior:B1Hark ended after confirmed final delivery without sending a redundant follow-up or attempting to override the delivery layer. E0003 confirms that both the links and all three takeaways were delivered. No required content was missing, and the delivery result explicitly directed Hark not to chase presentation wording with another send. Ending avoided duplication and left no requested subtask pending.
Evidence: E0003, E0004, E0005
✅llm_judge:behavior:B2Hark used only the user's supplied notes and did not perform unnecessary web research on the provided URLs. The user expressly required use of only their notes. The drafted takeaways closely paraphrase those notes, and the trajectory contains no research or retrieval call. External lookup was neither needed nor appropriate.
Evidence: E0001, E0002

Tool Timing

ToolCallsDurations (s)Total (s)Avg (s)
send_message12.52.52.5

Conversation

Turn 1: User Message ID: b16f065d-3026-46e0-85b3-9879aa228578
Turn this into a reading list for my team. Keep every link and write one sentence under each one explaining the takeaway. Use only my notes. https://example.com/reading/caches Cache invalidation should follow ownership boundaries rather than a shared global timer. https://example.com/reading/retries Retries need bounded backoff and should stop on errors that cannot succeed without changing the request. https://example.com/reading/queues Queue consumers should make duplicate delivery harmless instead of assuming each message arrives once.
send_message completeddispatch toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un
Input
{ "final": true, "in_response_to": "b16f065d", "message": "## Team Reading List\n\n**[Cache invalidation](https://example.com/reading/caches)**\nScope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.\n\n**[Retries](https://example.com/reading/retries)**\nBound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\n**[Queues](https://example.com/reading/queues)**\nDesign consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival." }
Result
Delivered (confirmed) as 2 messages. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees: 1) https://example.com/reading/caches https://example.com/reading/retries https://example.com/reading/queues 2) ```document title="Team reading list" subtitle=".txt file" Cache invalidation Scope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer. Retries Bound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes. Queues Design consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival. ``` These are your words now, and this is the whole reply: the delivery layer chose its density and shape by design. Never dispute, re-explain, or apologize for the phrasing, and never send a supplement to restore detail it left out. Only a final send settles its request. Never chase wording with another send. If a fact in it is wrong and would change what the user does, correct it when their next message arrives. Your turn continues. answers: b16f065d-3026-46e0-85b3-9879aa228578
Sub-agent trace (toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un, 2 events)
tools_started send_message t=42424.856
Inner payload
{
  "tool_name": "send_message",
  "tool_input": {
    "final": true,
    "in_response_to": "b16f065d",
    "message": "## Team Reading List\n\n**[Cache invalidation](https://example.com/reading/caches)**\nScope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.\n\n**[Retries](https://example.com/reading/retries)**\nBound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\n**[Queues](https://example.com/reading/queues)**\nDesign consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival."
  },
  "dispatch_id": "toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un",
  "parent_dispatch_id": "",
  "handle": "",
  "panel_kind": ""
}
tools_completed send_message t=42424.857
Inner payload
{
  "tool_name": "send_message",
  "dispatch_id": "toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un",
  "status": "completed",
  "result": "Delivered (confirmed) as 2 messages. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees:\n1) https://example.com/reading/caches\nhttps://example.com/reading/retries\nhttps://example.com/reading/queues\n2) ```document title=\"Team reading list\" subtitle=\".txt file\"\nCache invalidation\nScope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.\n\nRetries\nBound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\nQueues\nDesign consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival.\n```\nThese are your words now, and this is the whole reply: the delivery layer chose its density and shape by design. Never dispute, re-explain, or apologize for the phrasing, and never send a supplement to restore detail it left out. Only a final send settles its request. Never chase wording with another send. If a fact in it is wrong and would change what the user does, correct it when their next message arrives.\n\nYour turn continues.\nanswers: b16f065d-3026-46e0-85b3-9879aa228578",
  "error": "",
  "elapsed": 2.491554014
}
Turn 1: Assistant 1 Message ID: a6a5ed8c-2ce4-42bd-ac77-6decebf630f5
https://example.com/reading/caches https://example.com/reading/retries https://example.com/reading/queues
Turn 1: Assistant 2 Message ID: c001baa1-ea4c-41cb-b367-2d5eaef6364e

```document title="Team reading list" subtitle=".txt file"
Cache invalidation
Scope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.

Retries
Bound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.

Queues
Design consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival.

Markdown source
```document title="Team reading list" subtitle=".txt file"
Cache invalidation
Scope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.

Retries
Bound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.

Queues
Design consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival.
```
Evidence for turn 1: E0001 (user message)E0002 (tool call)E0003 (tool result)E0004 (assistant message)E0005 (assistant message)

Normalized evidence

The redacted, numbered record a structured judge grades. Check rows above link to the IDs they cite.
E0001 · turn 1 · user message
Turn this into a reading list for my team. Keep every link and write one sentence under each one explaining the takeaway. Use only my notes. https://example.com/reading/caches Cache invalidation should follow ownership boundaries rather than a shared global timer. https://example.com/reading/retries Retries need bounded backoff and should stop on errors that cannot succeed without changing the request. https://example.com/reading/queues Queue consumers should make duplicate delivery harmless instead of assuming each message arrives once.
E0002 · turn 1 · tool call · send_message · dispatch toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un
{"dispatch_id": "toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un", "handle": "", "panel_kind": "", "parent_dispatch_id": "", "tool_input": {"final": true, "in_response_to": "b16f065d", "message": "## Team Reading List\n\n**[Cache invalidation](https://example.com/reading/caches)**\nScope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.\n\n**[Retries](https://example.com/reading/retries)**\nBound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\n**[Queues](https://example.com/reading/queues)**\nDesign consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival."}, "tool_name": "send_message"}
E0003 · turn 1 · tool result · send_message · dispatch toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un
{"dispatch_id": "toolu_019FRsfD5SEMrh3mVfXFQ2un", "elapsed": 2.491554014, "error": "", "result": "Delivered (confirmed) as 2 messages. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees:\n1) https://example.com/reading/caches\nhttps://example.com/reading/retries\nhttps://example.com/reading/queues\n2) ```document title=\"Team reading list\" subtitle=\".txt file\"\nCache invalidation\nScope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer.\n\nRetries\nBound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\nQueues\nDesign consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival.\n```\nThese are your words now, and this is the whole reply: the delivery layer chose its density and shape by design. Never dispute, re-explain, or apologize for the phrasing, and never send a supplement to restore detail it left out. Only a final send settles its request. Never chase wording with another send. If a fact in it is wrong and would change what the user does, correct it when their next message arrives.\n\nYour turn continues.\nanswers: b16f065d-3026-46e0-85b3-9879aa228578", "status": "completed", "tool_name": "send_message"}
E0004 · turn 1 · assistant message
https://example.com/reading/caches https://example.com/reading/retries https://example.com/reading/queues
E0005 · turn 1 · assistant message
```document title="Team reading list" subtitle=".txt file" Cache invalidation Scope invalidation to whoever owns the data, rather than expiring everything on one shared global timer. Retries Bound your backoff, and stop retrying errors that can never succeed unless the request itself changes. Queues Design consumers so a duplicate delivery is harmless, instead of assuming exactly-once arrival. ```