← Back to run summary

hyper_targeted/requested_link_summaries/brief_reading_list-5

PASS

Surface: api Env: dev Duration: 11.8s Turns: 1 Tool calls: 1 Conversation ID: fb3ed8d6-f8a7-4d92-8b52-23f0be8b61c8 Account: eval-user40@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 29 · Passed 26 · Failed 3 · Not applicable 39
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. The confirmed delivered text (E0003, mirrored in E0004) contains all three URLs: https://example.com/reading/caches with 'Invalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer'; https://example.com/reading/retries with 'Bound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes'; and https://example.com/reading/queues with 'Design consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery'. Each is a full substantive sentence derived only from the user's notes, not a title or link-only list. All three required concepts (ownership-boundary cache invalidation, bounded retry behavior, harmless duplicate delivery) are present.
Evidence: E0001, E0002, E0003, E0004
✅llm_judge:terminalHark delivered a final message (final: true) that was confirmed delivered as a single message. The delivered content retains all three links with one substantive takeaway sentence under each, fulfilling the user's request with no remaining steps. The delivery layer reformatted into a document block but preserved every link and sentence, so no corrective action was needed or permitted.
Evidence: E0002, E0003, E0004
✅llm_judge:behavior:b_end_after_confirmed_complete_deliveryHark ended the turn after confirmed complete delivery instead of sending a redundant supplemental message to restore optional formatting. All required content was confirmed delivered, and the delivery result instructed Hark not to chase presentation changes with another send. Ending avoided needless duplicate communication without leaving work pending.
Evidence: E0003, E0004
✅llm_judge:behavior:b_use_only_user_notesHark constructed the reading list solely from the user-provided notes and made no external research calls. This directly respected the user's explicit source limitation while producing the requested deliverable. No lookup was necessary because the notes already contained every required link and takeaway.
Evidence: E0001, E0002

Tool Timing

ToolCallsDurations (s)Total (s)Avg (s)
send_message11.91.91.9

Conversation

Turn 1: User Message ID: 90376e96-4382-4db5-b998-c2435eec097b
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_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz
Input
{ "final": true, "in_response_to": "90376e96", "message": "Team Reading List\n\n1. [Cache invalidation](https://example.com/reading/caches)\nInvalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.\n\n2. [Retries](https://example.com/reading/retries)\nBound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\n3. [Queues](https://example.com/reading/queues)\nDesign consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery." }
Result
Delivered (confirmed) as 1 message. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees: 1) ```document title="Team Reading List" subtitle=".txt file" Cache invalidation https://example.com/reading/caches Invalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer. Retries https://example.com/reading/retries Bound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes. Queues https://example.com/reading/queues Design consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery. ``` 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: 90376e96-4382-4db5-b998-c2435eec097b
Sub-agent trace (toolu_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz, 2 events)
tools_started send_message t=42424.207
Inner payload
{
  "tool_name": "send_message",
  "tool_input": {
    "final": true,
    "in_response_to": "90376e96",
    "message": "Team Reading List\n\n1. [Cache invalidation](https://example.com/reading/caches)\nInvalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.\n\n2. [Retries](https://example.com/reading/retries)\nBound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\n3. [Queues](https://example.com/reading/queues)\nDesign consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery."
  },
  "dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz",
  "parent_dispatch_id": "",
  "handle": "",
  "panel_kind": ""
}
tools_completed send_message t=42424.208
Inner payload
{
  "tool_name": "send_message",
  "dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz",
  "status": "completed",
  "result": "Delivered (confirmed) as 1 message. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees:\n1) ```document title=\"Team Reading List\" subtitle=\".txt file\"\nCache invalidation\nhttps://example.com/reading/caches\nInvalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.\n\nRetries\nhttps://example.com/reading/retries\nBound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\nQueues\nhttps://example.com/reading/queues\nDesign consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery.\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: 90376e96-4382-4db5-b998-c2435eec097b",
  "error": "",
  "elapsed": 1.8985032020000001
}
Turn 1: Assistant Message ID: a005993b-21fb-4eb3-b837-576e12eeb5ec

```document title="Team Reading List" subtitle=".txt file"
Cache invalidation
https://example.com/reading/caches
Invalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.

Retries
https://example.com/reading/retries
Bound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.

Queues
https://example.com/reading/queues
Design consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery.

Markdown source
```document title="Team Reading List" subtitle=".txt file"
Cache invalidation
https://example.com/reading/caches
Invalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.

Retries
https://example.com/reading/retries
Bound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.

Queues
https://example.com/reading/queues
Design consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery.
```
Evidence for turn 1: E0001 (user message)E0002 (tool call)E0003 (tool result)E0004 (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_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz
{"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz", "handle": "", "panel_kind": "", "parent_dispatch_id": "", "tool_input": {"final": true, "in_response_to": "90376e96", "message": "Team Reading List\n\n1. [Cache invalidation](https://example.com/reading/caches)\nInvalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.\n\n2. [Retries](https://example.com/reading/retries)\nBound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\n3. [Queues](https://example.com/reading/queues)\nDesign consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery."}, "tool_name": "send_message"}
E0003 · turn 1 · tool result · send_message · dispatch toolu_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz
{"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01SXcugBBqPtxjdQpXbcu9Gz", "elapsed": 1.8985032020000001, "error": "", "result": "Delivered (confirmed) as 1 message. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees:\n1) ```document title=\"Team Reading List\" subtitle=\".txt file\"\nCache invalidation\nhttps://example.com/reading/caches\nInvalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer.\n\nRetries\nhttps://example.com/reading/retries\nBound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes.\n\nQueues\nhttps://example.com/reading/queues\nDesign consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery.\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: 90376e96-4382-4db5-b998-c2435eec097b", "status": "completed", "tool_name": "send_message"}
E0004 · turn 1 · assistant message
```document title="Team Reading List" subtitle=".txt file" Cache invalidation https://example.com/reading/caches Invalidate caches along ownership boundaries instead of relying on one shared global timer. Retries https://example.com/reading/retries Bound your backoff and stop retrying errors that cannot succeed unless the request itself changes. Queues https://example.com/reading/queues Design consumers so duplicate delivery is harmless rather than assuming exactly-once delivery. ```