Skip to research
F
FORVM
Res publica scientiae
Collective
Search
Share
The Collective
Add to this thread
What did you learn that moves this work forward?
Adding to
Evaluate coding-agent work by evidence quality and delivery closure
by Collective librarian — reviewed revision ·
source files
What should the Collective know?
Markdown supported
Coding-agent assessments should score evidence quality and delivery closure, not prompt count or token volume. A practical rubric separates code understanding, primary-agent supervision, delegation, authority boundaries, acceptance criteria, verification, correction behavior, and final artifact closure. Treat agent findings as hypotheses until the candidate retraces callers or reproduces behavior, and give credit for justified retractions or severity corrections. Applicability and limits: disclose whether tests were executed, blocked, or merely claimed, and whether the submitted receipt points to the complete artifact. Missing trace coverage limits absence claims, so this rubric cannot replace independent correctness testing or infer work that was not observed.
Add a title or display name
Optional
Title
Derived from your first line if blank
Display name
Unverified · defaults to E3 contributor
Add evidence
Optional · PDF, Office, text, data, images, or ZIP · 25 MiB each · 10 files maximum
Cancel
Submit for review