gstack/test/helpers/llm-judge.ts

/**
 * Shared LLM-as-judge helpers for eval and E2E tests.
 *
 * Provides callJudge (generic JSON-from-LLM), judge (doc quality scorer),
 * outcomeJudge (planted-bug detection scorer), judgePosture (mode-posture
 * regression scorer), and judgeRecommendation (AskUserQuestion recommendation
 * substance scorer).
 *
 * Requires: ANTHROPIC_API_KEY env var
 */

import Anthropic from '@anthropic-ai/sdk';

export interface JudgeScore {
  clarity: number;       // 1-5
  completeness: number;  // 1-5
  actionability: number; // 1-5
  reasoning: string;
}

export interface OutcomeJudgeResult {
  detected: string[];
  missed: string[];
  false_positives: number;
  detection_rate: number;
  evidence_quality: number;
  reasoning: string;
}

export interface PostureScore {
  axis_a: number;       // 1-5 — mode-specific primary rubric axis
  axis_b: number;       // 1-5 — mode-specific secondary rubric axis
  reasoning: string;
}

export type PostureMode = 'expansion' | 'forcing' | 'builder';

export interface RecommendationScore {
  /** Deterministic: a "Recommendation:" / "RECOMMENDATION:" line is present. */
  present: boolean;
  /** Deterministic: the recommendation names exactly one option (no hedging). */
  commits: boolean;
  /** Deterministic: the literal token "because " follows the choice. */
  has_because: boolean;
  /** Haiku judge, 1-5: specificity of the because-clause. See rubric in judgeRecommendation. */
  reason_substance: number;
  /** Extracted because-clause text, for diagnostics in test output. */
  reason_text: string;
  /** Judge's brief explanation. Empty when judge was skipped (no because-clause). */
  reasoning: string;
}

/**
 * Call an Anthropic model with a prompt, extract JSON response.
 * Retries once on 429 rate limit errors. Defaults to Sonnet 4.6 for
 * existing callers; pass a model id (e.g. claude-haiku-4-5-20251001)
 * for cheaper bounded judgments like judgeRecommendation.
 */
export async function callJudge<T>(prompt: string, model: string = 'claude-sonnet-4-6'): Promise<T> {
  const client = new Anthropic();

  const makeRequest = () => client.messages.create({
    model,
    max_tokens: 1024,
    messages: [{ role: 'user', content: prompt }],
  });

  let response;
  try {
    response = await makeRequest();
  } catch (err: any) {
    if (err.status === 429) {
      await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 1000));
      response = await makeRequest();
    } else {
      throw err;
    }
  }

  const text = response.content[0].type === 'text' ? response.content[0].text : '';
  const jsonMatch = text.match(/\{[\s\S]*\}/);
  if (!jsonMatch) throw new Error(`Judge returned non-JSON: ${text.slice(0, 200)}`);
  return JSON.parse(jsonMatch[0]) as T;
}

/**
 * Score documentation quality on clarity/completeness/actionability (1-5).
 */
export async function judge(section: string, content: string): Promise<JudgeScore> {
  return callJudge<JudgeScore>(`You are evaluating documentation quality for an AI coding agent's CLI tool reference.

The agent reads this documentation to learn how to use a headless browser CLI. It needs to:
1. Understand what each command does
2. Know what arguments to pass
3. Know valid values for enum-like parameters
4. Construct correct command invocations without guessing

Rate the following ${section} on three dimensions (1-5 scale):

- **clarity** (1-5): Can an agent understand what each command/flag does from the description alone?
- **completeness** (1-5): Are arguments, valid values, and important behaviors documented? Would an agent need to guess anything?
- **actionability** (1-5): Can an agent construct correct command invocations from this reference alone?

Scoring guide:
- 5: Excellent — no ambiguity, all info present
- 4: Good — minor gaps an experienced agent could infer
- 3: Adequate — some guessing required
- 2: Poor — significant info missing
- 1: Unusable — agent would fail without external help

Respond with ONLY valid JSON in this exact format:
{"clarity": N, "completeness": N, "actionability": N, "reasoning": "brief explanation"}

Here is the ${section} to evaluate:

${content}`);
}

/**
 * Evaluate a QA report against planted-bug ground truth.
 * Returns detection metrics for the planted bugs.
 */
export async function outcomeJudge(
  groundTruth: any,
  report: string,
): Promise<OutcomeJudgeResult> {
  return callJudge<OutcomeJudgeResult>(`You are evaluating a QA testing report against known ground truth bugs.

GROUND TRUTH (${groundTruth.total_bugs} planted bugs):
${JSON.stringify(groundTruth.bugs, null, 2)}

QA REPORT (generated by an AI agent):
${report}

For each planted bug, determine if the report identified it. A bug counts as
"detected" if the report describes the same defect, even if the wording differs.
Use the detection_hint keywords as guidance.

Also count false positives: issues in the report that don't correspond to any
planted bug AND aren't legitimate issues with the page.

Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
  "detected": ["bug-id-1", "bug-id-2"],
  "missed": ["bug-id-3"],
  "false_positives": 0,
  "detection_rate": 2,
  "evidence_quality": 4,
  "reasoning": "brief explanation"
}

Rules:
- "detected" and "missed" arrays must only contain IDs from the ground truth: ${groundTruth.bugs.map((b: any) => b.id).join(', ')}
- detection_rate = length of detected array
- evidence_quality (1-5): Do detected bugs have screenshots, repro steps, or specific element references?
  5 = excellent evidence for every bug, 1 = no evidence at all`);
}

/**
 * Score mode-specific prose posture on two mode-dependent axes (1-5 each).
 *
 * Used by mode-posture regression tests to detect whether V1's Writing Style
 * rules have flattened the distinctive energy of expansion / forcing / builder
 * modes. See docs/designs/PLAN_TUNING_V1.md and the V1.1 mode-posture fix.
 *
 * The generator model is whatever the skill runs with (often Opus for
 * plan-ceo-review). The judge is always Sonnet via callJudge() for cost.
 */
export async function judgePosture(mode: PostureMode, text: string): Promise<PostureScore> {
  const rubrics: Record<PostureMode, { axis_a: string; axis_b: string; context: string }> = {
    expansion: {
      context: 'This text is expansion proposals emitted by /plan-ceo-review in SCOPE EXPANSION or SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode. The skill is supposed to lead with felt-experience vision, then close with concrete effort and impact.',
      axis_a: 'surface_framing (1-5): Does each proposal lead with felt-experience framing ("imagine", "when the user sees", "the moment X happens", or equivalent) BEFORE closing with concrete metrics? Penalize pure feature bullets ("Add X. Improves Y by Z%").',
      axis_b: 'decision_preservation (1-5): Does each proposal contain the elements a scope-expansion decision needs — what to build (concrete shape), effort (ideally both human and CC scales), risk or integration note? Penalize pure prose with no actionable content.',
    },
    forcing: {
      context: 'This text is the Q3 Desperate Specificity question emitted by /office-hours startup mode. The skill is supposed to force the founder to name a specific person and consequence, stacking multiple pressures.',
      axis_a: 'stacking_preserved (1-5): Does the question include at least 3 distinct sub-pressures (e.g., title? promoted? fired? up at night? OR career? day? weekend?) rather than a single neutral ask? Penalize "Who is your target user?" style collapses.',
      axis_b: 'domain_matched_consequence (1-5): Does the named consequence match the domain context in the input (B2B → career impact, consumer → daily pain, hobby/open-source → weekend project)? Penalize one-size-fits-all B2B career framing for non-B2B ideas.',
    },
    builder: {
      context: 'This text is builder-mode response from /office-hours. The skill is supposed to riff creatively — "what if you also..." adjacent unlocks, cross-domain combinations, the "whoa" moment — not emit a structured product roadmap.',
      axis_a: 'unexpected_combinations (1-5): Does the output include at least 2 cross-domain or surprising adjacent unlocks ("what if you also...", "pipe it into X", etc.)? Penalize structured feature lists with no creative leaps.',
      axis_b: 'excitement_over_optimization (1-5): Does the output read as a creative riff (enthusiastic, opinionated, evocative) or as a PRD / product roadmap (structured, metric-driven, conservative)? Penalize PRD-voice language like "improve retention", "enable virality", "consider adding".',
    },
  };

  const r = rubrics[mode];
  return callJudge<PostureScore>(`You are evaluating prose quality for a mode-specific posture regression test.

Context: ${r.context}

Rate the following output on two dimensions (1-5 scale each):

- **axis_a** — ${r.axis_a}
- **axis_b** — ${r.axis_b}

Scoring guide:
- 5: Excellent — strong, unambiguous match for the posture
- 4: Good — matches posture with minor weakness
- 3: Adequate — partial match, noticeable flatness or structure
- 2: Poor — posture mostly flattened / collapsed
- 1: Fail — posture entirely missing, reads as the opposite mode

Respond with ONLY valid JSON in this exact format:
{"axis_a": N, "axis_b": N, "reasoning": "brief explanation naming specific phrases that drove the score"}

Here is the output to evaluate:

${text}`);
}

/**
 * Score the quality of an AskUserQuestion's recommendation line.
 *
 * Layered design:
 * 1. Deterministic regex parse for present / commits / has_because. These
 *    don't need an LLM.
 * 2. Haiku 4.5 judges only the 1-5 reason_substance axis on a tight rubric
 *    scoped to the because-clause itself (with the menu as context).
 *
 * Returns reason_substance = 1 with diagnostic reasoning when the because-clause
 * is missing — no LLM call needed; substance is implicitly absent.
 *
 * Format spec: scripts/resolvers/preamble/generate-ask-user-format.ts
 *   Recommendation: <choice> because <one-line reason>
 */
export async function judgeRecommendation(askUserText: string): Promise<RecommendationScore> {
  // Deterministic checks. The format spec requires:
  //   "Recommendation: <choice> because <reason>"
  // Match case-insensitive on the leading word, allow optional markdown
  // emphasis markers (** or __) the agent sometimes adds.
  const recLine = askUserText.match(
    /^[*_]*\s*recommendation\s*[*_]*\s*:\s*(.+)$/im,
  );
  const present = !!recLine;
  const recBody = recLine?.[1]?.trim() ?? '';

  // has_because: literal "because" token in the body, per the format spec.
  const becauseMatch = recBody.match(/\bbecause\s+(.+?)$/i);
  const has_because = !!becauseMatch;
  const reason_text = becauseMatch?.[1]?.trim() ?? '';

  // commits: reject hedging language only in the CHOICE portion (before the
  // "because" token). The because-clause itself is the reason and routinely
  // contains technical phrases like "the plan doesn't yet depend on Redis"
  // that aren't hedging at all. Looking only at the choice keeps the check
  // focused: "Either A or B because..." → flagged; "A because depends on X" →
  // accepted.
  const choicePortion = becauseMatch
    ? recBody.slice(0, recBody.toLowerCase().indexOf('because')).trim()
    : recBody;
  const commits = present && !/\b(either|depends? on|depending|if .+ then|or maybe|whichever)\b/i.test(choicePortion);

  // If the because-clause is absent, the substance score is implicitly 1.
  // Skip the LLM call — there is nothing to grade.
  if (!present || !has_because || !reason_text) {
    return {
      present,
      commits,
      has_because,
      reason_substance: 1,
      reason_text,
      reasoning: present
        ? 'No "because <reason>" clause found in recommendation line — substance scored 1 by deterministic check.'
        : 'No "Recommendation:" line found in captured text — substance scored 1 by deterministic check.',
    };
  }

  // LLM judge: rate the because-clause specifically, 1-5.
  // The full askUserText is included as context so the judge can tell whether
  // the reason names a tradeoff specific to the chosen option vs an alternative,
  // but the score is about the because-clause itself, not the surrounding menu.
  const prompt = `You are scoring the quality of one specific line in an AskUserQuestion: the "Recommendation: <choice> because <reason>" line. Score the because-clause substance on a 1-5 scale.

Rubric:
- 5: Reason names a SPECIFIC TRADEOFF that distinguishes the chosen option from at least one alternative (e.g. "because hybrid ships V1 in gstack-only without blocking on cross-repo gbrain coordination", "because Postgres preserves ACID guarantees the workflow already depends on").
- 4: Reason is concrete and option-specific but does NOT explicitly compare against an alternative (e.g. "because Redis gives sub-millisecond reads under load", "because the new schema removes the JOIN we were paying for").
- 3: Reason is real but generic — could apply to many options ("because it's faster", "because it's simpler", "because it ships sooner").
- 2: Reason restates the option label or is near-tautological ("because it's the hybrid one", "because that's the recommended approach").
- 1: Reason is boilerplate / empty ("because it's better", "because it works", "because it's the right choice").

You are scoring the because-clause itself, not the surrounding pros/cons or option labels. The menu is context only.

Extracted because-clause:
${reason_text}

Full AskUserQuestion (context only — do NOT score this):
${askUserText.slice(0, 4000)}

Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{"reason_substance": N, "reasoning": "one sentence explanation citing the specific words that drove the score"}`;

  const out = await callJudge<{ reason_substance: number; reasoning: string }>(
    prompt,
    'claude-haiku-4-5-20251001',
  );

  return {
    present,
    commits,
    has_because,
    reason_substance: out.reason_substance,
    reason_text,
    reasoning: out.reasoning,
  };
}