Offline Eval Improvement

Use this skill when improving src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher.md from Weave Evaluation evidence fetched with the wandb-primary skill rather than daily annotation queues.

The coding agent starts from explicit experiment inputs, inspects the baseline evaluation run, analyzes failed rows, writes a plan, backs up the starting prompt, edits the local prompt, validates the change, reruns the same dataset, and reports the before/after result for each iteration.

Before You Start

Follow AGENTS.md setup first, then select and use the installed wandb-primary skill for Weave evaluation, dataset, trace, and scorer evidence. This skill only defines the Discovery Forge offline-eval improvement workflow.

Fetch all evaluation evidence live from Weave through wandb-primary skill guidance, including its Weave SDK / W&B API patterns. Do not use W&B MCP tools, and do not add discovery-forge query wrappers.

Required Inputs

Ask for or infer these inputs before editing. First check src/discovery_forge/evaluation/evaluation_config.yaml and use its offline_eval_improvement values when present. If any input is still missing and cannot be inferred from the user's request or latest evaluate.py output, stop and ask for it.

• Dataset: a configured dataset key such as verdict_quality, or a full published Weave Dataset ref.
• Start prompt: the local prompt file to improve, or a Weave StringPrompt ref to inspect as the starting baseline. Default local file is src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher.md.
• Baseline evaluation ID: the Weave Evaluation parent call ID or URL that represents the score to beat.
• Max iterations: maximum number of prompt edit + eval cycles to run before reporting back.

Keep these inputs visible in every plan and report so workshop participants can see which dataset, prompt, baseline, and iteration budget they are using.

Default Project

• Entity: read from .env as WANDB_ENTITY (required; use your own W&B entity)
• Project: read from .env as WANDB_PROJECT (required; .env.example uses discovery-forge)
• API key: read from .env as WANDB_API_KEY (required)
• Prompt file: src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher.md
• Prompt backups: src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher_backup_<N>.md
• Evaluation entrypoint: uv run python evaluate.py
• Evaluation config: src/discovery_forge/evaluation/evaluation_config.yaml
• Improvement history: src/discovery_forge/agents/improve_history/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-offline-eval>/plan.md and src/discovery_forge/agents/improve_history/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-offline-eval>/applied.md
• Primary metric: verdict_quality_scorer.is_correct.true_fraction
• Versioning behavior: when evaluate.py uses the local prompt, it publishes the current researcher.md as a Weave StringPrompt and publishes ResearcherAgentModel for the run. Use --researcher-prompt-ref only when intentionally comparing a fixed published prompt version.

Prompt Edit Scope

Each improvement iteration should make a focused, policy-level prompt edit that covers one or two related failure clusters. Pair every new reject rule with an explicit accept-protection clause (for example "missing metadata is a profile limitation, not a scope failure") so that tightening one cluster does not push correctly-accepted rows into false rejects.

Rules

• Cover one or two related failure clusters in a focused edit; keep every change policy-level (artifact types, loop evidence, output discipline), not candidate-specific cheats.
• Pair reject rules with accept-protection so tightening one cluster does not create false rejects elsewhere.
• After each iteration, rerun evaluate.py. Because a single run varies by ~±2-3 rows, rerun 2-3 times (or compare per-row stability) before trusting a change. If the metric regresses across runs, revert to the backup and retry.
• Do not hardcode dataset row IDs or candidate names as a lookup table in the prompt.
• Record in plan.md what you are not changing this iteration so the next pass has a clear queue.

Prompt-edit guardrails

These keep edits general (no cherry-picking specific candidates) while avoiding the common regression where tightening rejects silently destroys correct accepts:

• Express policy as distinctions the candidate either meets or not (artifact type, observable behavior, what it revises). Avoid rules keyed on evidence completeness — clauses that say "reject if the loop is missing, implied, weak, unverified, or not fully proven" fire on genuine positives too, because real in-scope systems often have incomplete primary sources. They cause broad false rejects.
• A reject rule should describe what kind of thing is out of scope, not how much proof you happened to find this session. Missing/limited evidence is a profile limitation to record, not a reject trigger.
• Do not add a clause that contradicts an existing accept-protection clause. If a new sentence and an existing one disagree (e.g. "accept loop runners even with thin metadata" vs "reject if evidence is implied"), the model follows the stricter one and the protection is lost. Resolve the conflict instead of stacking both.
• Every iteration, check both error directions on the rerun: count new false rejects (accepted→rejected) as well as fixed false accepts. A change that fixes one cluster but flips several correct accepts is a net regression even if it "sounds stricter".
• Before keeping an edit, ask: would this sentence change the verdict on candidates I did not intend to touch? If yes, it is too broad — narrow it to the targeted artifact type or behavior.

Common Failure Clusters

1. Wrong artifact type (survey, cookbook, guide, list-like sources)
2. Adjacent infrastructure (memory-only, testing gate, repo-automation host, generic framework)
3. Weak-evidence or over-strict edge cases (protect correctly-accepted loop runners)

Evidence Workflow

1. Record the required inputs: dataset, start prompt, baseline evaluation ID, and max iterations.
2. Resolve the dataset:
   • If the user gave a dataset key, read src/discovery_forge/evaluation/evaluation_config.yaml and use that key's ref.
   • If the config defines offline_eval_improvement.dataset_key, use that key unless the user supplied a different one.
   • If the user gave a full Weave Dataset ref, use it directly for this loop.
3. Resolve the start prompt:
   • If the config defines offline_eval_improvement.start_prompt, use that path unless the user supplied a different prompt.
   • If the user gave a local path, read that file and treat it as the editable prompt.
   • If the user gave a Weave StringPrompt ref, inspect it through wandb-primary, then decide with the user whether to copy its content into the local editable prompt.
   • If unspecified, use src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher.md.
4. Resolve max iterations from the user's request or offline_eval_improvement.max_iterations.
5. Inspect the baseline Weave Evaluation parent call from the given call ID or URL. If offline_eval_improvement.baseline_evaluation_id is set, use that as the default baseline.
6. If no baseline evaluation run exists yet, run one with the selected dataset and start prompt, then use that new parent call as the baseline:

   uv run python evaluate.py --verdict-dataset-key '<dataset-key>'
   # or: uv run python evaluate.py --verdict-dataset-ref '<dataset-ref>'
   

7. Use the wandb-primary skill to inspect the parent evaluation call.
8. Use the wandb-primary skill to inspect the child row calls.
9. Pull only the fields needed for diagnosis: row inputs, expected labels, model output, scorer outputs, call status, and prompt/model ref metadata when present. For the current verdict eval, include expected_scope_status, output scope_status, verdict, verdict_reason, final_output, profile_review_markdown, run.researcher_prompt_ref, run.researcher_prompt_hash, run.researcher_model_ref, and verdict_quality_scorer.is_correct.
10. Filter to rows where the primary scorer failed. Keep a small sample of passing rows only when needed to avoid changing behavior that already works.
11. Group failures into prompt-policy patterns. For verdict eval:

• expected rejected, observed accepted: scope filter is too permissive.
• expected accepted, observed rejected: scope filter is too strict or treats metadata weakness as scope failure.
• observed unknown: agent failed to call either save tool; improve the decision/output discipline.

12. Read the local prompt that will be edited.
13. Write src/discovery_forge/agents/improve_history/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-offline-eval>/plan.md before editing. Use the local execution start time for the directory name, for example 2026-06-12-1505-offline-eval. If the file already exists for that improvement loop, update it instead of creating a new call-ID directory.
14. Before editing, preserve the current prompt as src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher_backup_<N>.md, where <N> is the next available integer starting from 0.

Evaluation Evidence Selection

Use the wandb-primary skill to fetch and inspect Weave Evaluation evidence. This skill only defines which Discovery Forge evidence matters:

• Parent evaluation call: the exact eval call ID or link under analysis.
• Child row calls: the dataset-row-level evaluation results under that parent.
• Dataset row inputs: candidate name, candidate URL, description, and expected_scope_status.
• Model output: reviewer payload (profile_review_markdown, verdict, tool_name, primary_url, summary, search, run) plus eval-compatible fields (scope_status, verdict_reason, final_output, and profile when available). For accepted/rejected rows, scope_status should mirror verdict; scorers read scope_status first for compatibility.
• Scorer output: verdict_quality_scorer.is_correct and any supporting scorer detail.
• Prompt/model metadata: prompt ref/hash and ResearcherAgentModel ref when present.

Inspect one child row first to learn the shape, then extract the smallest stable set of fields needed to identify failed verdict rows.

Plan Format

Use this structure:

# Offline Eval Prompt Improvement Plan for <YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-offline-eval>

## Source
- Dataset: <dataset key or full ref>
- Dataset ref: <resolved published Weave Dataset ref>
- Start prompt: <local path or Weave StringPrompt ref>
- Baseline prompt ref/hash: <published prompt ref and hash from the run>
- Baseline ResearcherAgentModel ref: <published model ref from the run>
- Baseline Weave Evaluation parent call: <eval-call-id or link>
- Baseline metric: `verdict_quality_scorer.is_correct` = <value>
- Max iterations: <n>
- Current iteration: <i>/<n>
- Failed rows inspected: <n>
- Current `researcher.md` inspected

## Prompt Edit Scope
- Target clusters this iteration: <one or two related failure patterns>
- Accept-protection: <passing behavior that must stay stable>
- Deferred patterns: <remaining failure patterns, if any>

## Failure Summary
- <concrete failure pattern with candidate examples>

## Proposed Prompt Change
- <exact behavior change>

## Expected Effect
- <which failure patterns should improve and which passing behavior must stay stable>

## Applied Files
- `src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher.md`

## Out of Scope
- Dataset rows, labels, scorer logic, evaluation runner, registry, schemas, and search backend behavior are not changed during prompt iteration.

Apply Rules

• Prompt-only changes may edit only src/discovery_forge/agents/researcher.md.
• Evaluation reruns publish the local researcher.md prompt and ResearcherAgentModel by design so every run has version refs in Weave. Do not change evaluate.py, datasets, labels, or scorers to force a better score.
• Before each prompt edit, create the next backup file: researcher_backup_0.md, then researcher_backup_1.md, and so on. Never overwrite an existing backup.
• Do not change evaluation datasets, labels, scorers, or evaluate.py to make results look better.
• Do not create fallback behavior.
• Keep scope verdict separate from metadata completeness.
• If primary sources prove the task -> evaluator -> feedback/memory -> improvement loop but metadata is incomplete, record the weakness in key_limitations instead of rejecting solely for metadata incompleteness.
• If expected_scope_status == accepted and the agent rejects due to missing metadata, treat the prompt as over-strict unless the dataset row appears wrong.
• If expected_scope_status == rejected and the agent accepts, treat it as a scope-policy issue unless the dataset row appears wrong.
• If a dataset row, label, or scorer appears wrong, report it as dataset/scorer maintenance rather than editing those artifacts in this workflow.
• Use failed candidate names as policy examples in the plan. Do not hardcode them as required outputs.

After editing, write src/discovery_forge/agents/improve_history/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM-offline-eval>/applied.md. If the file already exists for that improvement loop, update it with the latest applied summary.

Local Prompt Iteration

During development, evaluate the local prompt file directly. Do not pass --researcher-prompt-ref; evaluate.py will publish the current local prompt and ResearcherAgentModel for each run so the result is versioned. Pass --researcher-prompt-ref only when the goal is to compare a fixed published prompt ref.

Run no more than the requested max iterations. Stop early if the primary metric improves enough for the user's goal, if the remaining failures are dataset/scorer maintenance issues, or if two consecutive focused edits regress the baseline.

For each iteration:

1. Update plan.md with the current iteration number, selected dataset ref, start prompt, baseline eval ID, target cluster, and deferred patterns.
2. Create the next backup file.
3. Make a focused edit covering one or two related clusters with paired accept-protection.
4. Run focused validation.
5. Run the same selected dataset:

   uv run python evaluate.py --verdict-dataset-key '<dataset-key>'
   # or: uv run python evaluate.py --verdict-dataset-ref '<dataset-ref>'
   

6. Compare the new run against the baseline evaluation ID and the previous iteration.
7. Keep the change only if the selected dataset metric improves across runs without unacceptable row-level regressions. Because a single run varies by ~±2-3 rows, rerun 2-3 times or compare per-row stability before trusting a borderline change.
8. If correctly-accepted rows flipped to rejected, strengthen the accept-protection clause and rerun within the max-iteration budget.
9. If the metric regresses across runs, revert to the backup and either try the next focused cluster or stop and report the regression.

Validation

Run focused validation:

uv run pytest tests/unit/test_researcher.py -q

Then rerun the same selected dataset:

uv run python evaluate.py --verdict-dataset-key '<dataset-key>'
# or: uv run python evaluate.py --verdict-dataset-ref '<dataset-ref>'

Report Back

Report:

• dataset key/ref used
• start prompt path/ref
• baseline evaluation ID
• max iterations requested and iterations completed
• targeted failure cluster and deferred patterns
• baseline verdict_quality_scorer.is_correct
• number of failed rows inspected
• failure patterns found
• prompt changes made
• prompt ref/hash and ResearcherAgentModel ref used by each rerun
• both error directions after rerun: false accepts fixed AND any new false rejects introduced
• backup file created
• tests run
• rerun evaluation ID(s) and verdict_quality_scorer.is_correct
• remaining failed patterns or dataset/scorer maintenance notes