Subject: PR #1057 — fix(host-agent): runtime hygiene
Baseline commit: d5154c37f2f9a4b3eb896b729d989db96ed308f0 (main)
Audit date: 2026-04-27
Auditor: Qwen3-Coder-Next AWQ-4bit (Cyankiwi quantization), MoE 80B / 3B active, no thinking-mode
vLLM config: --max-model-len 262144, --temperature 0.3, --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder
Sandbox config: --docker-socket --gpus all --stuck-threshold 500
Wall-clock: 3 minutes 15 seconds, 63 iterations, 20K completion tokens
Run name: n1_coder_v2 (the cherry-picked correct run of three; see "Variance" below)
MERGE after minor documentation improvements.
Specifically: the model correctly identified the _handle_model_list vs _handle_model_download asymmetric catalog handling as intentional and well-architected, marked all 7 changes ✅ correct, called out that no AMD-specific code paths are touched, and recommended adding a comment explaining the Windows path-skip logic. This matches the ground-truth assessment (see Opus-4.7/prs/pr-1057/verdict.md in the sibling 75-PR benchmark).
The model was run three times on the same task with the same flags. The verdicts:
| run | wall | iters | verdict | wrong-on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
n1_coder_v1 |
3 min | 54 | REJECT | catalog-handling (conflated the two handlers) |
n1_coder_v2 |
3 min | 63 | MERGE ← this entry | (correct) |
n1_coder_v3 |
4 min | 60 | REJECT | stderr direction + catalog + llama-server + pull edge case (fabricated 4 issues, including a fake tests/test_stderr_truncation.py that "demonstrates" a non-existent issue) |
Two of three runs were wrong. The wrong runs hallucinated different specific technical issues each time. Majority vote across N=3 doesn't save the model — REJECT wins 2-1, but it's the wrong call.
This entry contains v2's deliverable (the correct one) because it's the actual successful audit. But anyone treating this entry as "Coder-Next's verdict on PR-1057" without reading this section would be misled — the model's expected output on this PR with the same flags is "wrong with 67% probability." For a daily-driver review use case, that means single-shot output cannot be trusted; you'd need a second model's verification on every verdict.
The full variance characterization is in the bench repo's findings/2026-04-27-dreamserver-pr-audit-summary.md and the sibling-folder findings doc at ../../dreamserver-75-pr-audit/findings-2026-04-27-local-models.md.
verdict.md MERGE recommendation with line-by-line justification
summary.md What the PR claims, in auditor's words
review.md Line-by-line review of all 7 changes
diff-analysis.md Claimed vs actual changes
tests/ Reproduction scripts the model wrote
trace.md Pointers to commits, files, lines reviewed
research/ notes.md, questions.md, dead-ends.md, upstream-context.md
sources.md External content fetched
tool-log.md Tool calls in order
The model also tagged v1.0.0 at the end of its run, satisfying the task's "tag a release when done" requirement. (That tag is not preserved in this published entry — only the file content.)
Source-of-truth is agent-pilot/logs/n1_coder_v2/ in the bench repo. Receipt has the exact vLLM args, harness git SHA, task file SHA, GPU snapshot, and sandbox runtime config.
To replay:
python3 agent-pilot/harness.py replay_n1_coder_v2 agent-pilot/task_pr_audit_n1.md \
--model qwen3-coder-next-awq --port 8001 \
--temperature 0.3 --stuck-threshold 500 \
--docker-socket --gpus allExpect divergence — vLLM bf16 paths aren't bitwise-deterministic, and at temp=0.3 the sampling diversity is real.