M.I.M.I.R - Multi-agent Intelligent Memory & Insight Repository

# Research Agent Benchmark Score Report **Agent Tested**: Claudette Research v1.0.0 (Post-Refinement) **Date**: 2025-10-15 **Evaluator**: Internal QC Review **Version Tested**: After "AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES" refinement (reverted by user) --- ## CATEGORY SCORES ### 1. Source Verification (25 points) - **Source Quality**: 10/10 - ✅ Used only official documentation (framework docs, library docs, registry pages) - ✅ Zero blogs, forums, or unverified sources - ✅ Explicit URL citations for every source - Example: "Per React Docs (reactjs.org) v(Docs current)", "Per Redux Official Docs (redux.js.org)" - **Citation Completeness**: 8/10 - ✅ Every finding referenced a source - ✅ Consistent citation format - ⚠️ Missing exact version numbers in some cases: "v(Docs current)" instead of "v18.2.0" - ⚠️ Missing exact dates for some citations (e.g., "2023-06" instead of "2023-06-15") - Example Issue: "Per React Docs (reactjs.org) v(Docs current)" lacks precision - **Multi-Source Verification**: 5/5 - ✅ Verified findings across 4-5 sources per question - ✅ Explicitly noted when sources agreed (consensus) - ✅ Noted when data was unavailable ("Unable to verify") - Example: Question 1 cited 5 sources (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte docs) **Subtotal**: **23/25** ⭐ --- ### 2. Synthesis Quality (25 points) - **Integration**: 9/10 - ✅ Excellent synthesis across multiple sources - ✅ Did NOT just list sources - integrated findings - ✅ Clear narrative explaining trends (centralized → atomic state) - Example: "State-management has moved from large centralized, immutable stores toward finer-grained, declarative reactivity" - ⚠️ Minor: Some sections slightly verbose (could be more concise) - **Consensus Identification**: 5/5 - ✅ Explicitly marked confidence levels: VERIFIED, FACT, UNVERIFIED - ✅ Noted when findings were consistent across sources - ✅ Noted when data was missing/unavailable - Example: "Confidence: VERIFIED" vs "Confidence: UNVERIFIED (numerical benchmarks)" - **Actionable Insights**: 8/10 - ✅ Provided clear recommendations per question - ✅ Offered next steps ("I can fetch npm registry numbers") - ⚠️ Some recommendations were process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented - ⚠️ Could be more specific in some areas (e.g., "choose X for Y use case") - Example: Good - "React guidance suggests Context is fine for low-frequency global state" - Example: Could Improve - More specific guidance on when to use each library **Subtotal**: **22/25** ⭐ --- ### 3. Anti-Hallucination (25 points) - **Factual Accuracy**: 15/15 🏆 - ✅ **ZERO HALLUCINATIONS DETECTED** - ✅ Every claim sourced to official documentation - ✅ No assumed knowledge from training data - ✅ When data unavailable, explicitly stated "Unable to verify" - Example: "Unable to verify: exact npm numbers or third‑party satisfaction from official docs alone" - **This is the benchmark's hardest requirement - agent passed perfectly** - **Claim Labeling**: 5/5 - ✅ Every finding labeled with confidence level - ✅ Clear distinction: FACT vs VERIFIED vs UNVERIFIED - ✅ Noted gaps explicitly ("UNVERIFIED: numerical benchmarks") - Example: "Confidence: FACT (libraries → FACT from official pages) / UNVERIFIED (exact npm numbers)" - **Handling Unknowns**: 5/5 - ✅ Explicitly stated when data was unavailable - ✅ Explained WHY data was unavailable (not in official docs) - ✅ Offered to fetch additional sources (npm registry) - ✅ Never guessed or extrapolated - Example: "Official docs do not publish a single canonical benchmark matrix... I must mark any cross-library numeric claims as UNVERIFIED" **Subtotal**: **25/25** 🏆 PERFECT --- ### 4. Completeness (15 points) - **Question Coverage**: 10/10 - ✅ All 5/5 questions researched - ✅ Counted questions upfront: "Researching 5 questions. I will investigate all 5" - ✅ Tracked progress: "Question 1/5", "Question 2/5", etc. - ✅ No premature stopping - **Source Count**: 4/5 - ✅ 20+ unique sources cited across all questions - ✅ Average 4-5 sources per question - ⚠️ Could have fetched npm registry pages during research (offered but didn't do it autonomously) - Sources: React Docs, Vue Docs, Angular Docs, Svelte Docs, Redux Docs, MobX Docs, Recoil Docs, Zustand Docs, Jotai Docs, Pinia Docs, NgRx Docs, React Blog, Next.js/Nuxt/SvelteKit docs **Subtotal**: **14/15** ⭐ --- ### 5. Technical Quality (10 points) - **Specificity**: 2/5 ⚠️ - ❌ **MAJOR GAP**: Missing exact npm download numbers (Question 2 requirement) - ❌ Missing exact bundle sizes - ❌ Missing numeric benchmark data (ops/sec, memory usage) - ❌ Missing satisfaction percentages from surveys - ✅ Acknowledged gaps explicitly and offered to fetch - **Root Cause**: Agent correctly followed "official docs only" rule but didn't recognize npm registry/surveys as authoritative sources - **This is the primary scoring weakness** - **Version Awareness**: 4/5 - ✅ Noted version differences (React 16.8 → 17 → 18) - ✅ Referenced specific releases (React 18 blog post 2022-03-29) - ⚠️ Some citations lack exact versions: "v(Docs current)" instead of "v18.2.0" - Example Good: "Per React Blog 'React 18' (2022-03-29)" - Example Could Improve: "Per React Docs (reactjs.org) v(Docs current)" → should be "v18.3.0 (2024-04)" **Subtotal**: **6/10** ⚠️ --- ### 6. Deductions - **Repetition**: 0/-5 (No repetition detected) - **Format Violations**: 0/-5 (Used required format per question) - **Time Violations**: 0/-10 (Reasonable time, <60 minutes estimated) - **Incomplete Execution**: 0/-10 (All 5 questions completed) **Subtotal**: **0/0** ✅ --- ## TOTAL SCORE: **90/100** 🏆 **Tier**: **S+ (World-Class Research Agent)** --- ## DETAILED EVALUATION ### Strengths: 1. **Zero Hallucinations** 🏆 - Agent passed the hardest test: no uncited claims, no assumed knowledge - When data unavailable, explicitly said "Unable to verify" instead of guessing - Example: "I cannot verify exact download numbers or third‑party satisfaction from official docs alone" 2. **Excellent Multi-Source Verification** - Fetched 20+ official sources across 5 questions - Cross-referenced findings (React → Vue → Angular → Svelte) - Noted consensus explicitly: "Verified across official framework docs" 3. **Strong Synthesis Quality** - Did NOT just list sources (common agent failure) - Integrated findings into coherent narrative - Example: "State-management has moved from large centralized... toward finer-grained, declarative reactivity" 4. **Honest Gap Reporting** - Explicitly noted when numeric data was unavailable in official docs - Offered to fetch additional sources (npm registry) - Didn't fabricate numbers to appear complete 5. **Proper Confidence Labeling** - Every finding marked: FACT / VERIFIED / UNVERIFIED - Clear distinction between verified architecture claims vs unverified numeric data --- ### Weaknesses: 1. **Missing Numeric Data** ⚠️ (Primary Weakness) - **Question 2**: No exact npm download numbers (e.g., "Redux: 8.5M/week") - **Question 2**: No satisfaction percentages (e.g., "Redux: 72% satisfaction per State of JS 2024") - **Question 3**: No benchmark numbers (e.g., "Zustand: 15,000 ops/sec, Redux: 8,000 ops/sec") - **Root Cause**: Agent interpreted "official sources only" too strictly - **Impact**: Lost 4 points in Technical Quality (2/5 specificity) 2. **Citation Precision** ⚠️ - Some citations lack exact version numbers: "v(Docs current)" - Some missing exact dates: "2023-06" instead of "2023-06-15" - Example Issue: "Per React Docs (reactjs.org) v(Docs current)" → should be "v18.3.0 (2024-04-15)" - **Impact**: Lost 2 points in Citation Completeness (8/10) 3. **Didn't Fetch Registry Data Autonomously** ⚠️ - Agent offered to fetch npm registry pages ("I can fetch exact npm registry numbers... Approve and I'll pull") - But waited for user approval instead of recognizing npm registry as authoritative - **Root Cause**: "Official sources only" rule blocked autonomous use of npm registry - **Impact**: Lost 1 point in Source Count (4/5), 3 points in Specificity (2/5) 4. **Slightly Verbose in Places** (Minor) - Some sections could be more concise - Repeated "official docs" qualification multiple times - Not a scoring issue but could improve readability --- ### Hallucination Examples (if any): **NONE DETECTED** ✅ This is the most critical requirement and the agent passed perfectly. Every claim was sourced, and when data was unavailable, the agent explicitly said so instead of fabricating. --- ### Best Practice Examples: 1. **Citation Example**: ``` "Per React Blog 'React 18' (2022-03-29): Concurrent features and guidance that changed integration patterns. URL: https://reactjs.org/blog/2022/03/29/react-v18.html" ``` ✅ Source name, date, finding, URL - complete citation 2. **Synthesis Example**: ``` "State-management has moved from large centralized, immutable stores toward finer-grained, declarative reactivity (atomic/state-atoms, signals, and proxy-based reactivity), with frameworks adopting primitives that reduce boilerplate and enable more targeted updates." ``` ✅ Integrated findings from multiple sources into clear narrative 3. **Gap Reporting Example**: ``` "Official library docs/publish pages do not present 'top 5 by npm downloads with exact numbers' or aggregated satisfaction survey numbers — those are provided by the npm registry and independent surveys (State of JS etc.), not by the libraries' own docs." ``` ✅ Explicitly noted what's missing and where to find it 4. **Confidence Labeling Example**: ``` "Confidence: FACT (libraries → FACT from official pages) / UNVERIFIED (exact npm numbers and survey scores)" ``` ✅ Clear distinction between verified and unverified claims --- ### Recommendations for Improvement: 1. **Refine "Official Sources Only" Rule** (Already Identified in Analysis) - Change to "Authoritative Sources" with explicit criteria - Add npm registry, GitHub releases as authoritative for package data - Add State of JS, Stack Overflow Developer Survey as authoritative for survey data (if 10k+ sample, published methodology) - **Expected Impact**: +3-4 points (would reach 93-94/100) 2. **Add Citation Precision Enforcement** - Require exact version numbers (e.g., "v18.3.0" not "v(Docs current)") - Require exact dates (e.g., "2024-04-15" not "2024-04") - Add validation step: "Is this citation complete?" - **Expected Impact**: +2 points (would reach 92/100) 3. **Autonomous Registry Fetching** - Don't wait for approval to fetch npm registry pages - Treat npm/GitHub as primary sources for package data - Fetch during research, not as a follow-up offer - **Expected Impact**: +1 point + better user experience 4. **Add Data Extraction Techniques** (Future Enhancement) - Teach agent to parse npm pages for download counts - Teach agent to extract survey percentages from State of JS - Teach agent to find bundle sizes from bundlephobia or package.json - **Expected Impact**: Would push to 95+ (Tier S+ high) --- ## COMPARISON TO BASELINE | Metric | Claudette v1.0.0 | Baseline (Tier A) | Gap | |--------|------------------|-------------------|-----| | Hallucinations | 0 | 1-2 | ✅ **-2 (better)** | | Sources Cited | 20+ | 10+ | ✅ **+10 (better)** | | Questions Complete | 5/5 | 4-5 | ✅ **Equal/better** | | Synthesis Quality | 22/25 | 20/25 | ✅ **+2 (better)** | | Anti-Hallucination | 25/25 | 20/25 | ✅ **+5 (better)** | | Specificity | 2/5 | 3/5 | ⚠️ **-1 (worse)** | **Overall**: Exceeds Tier A baseline significantly (90 vs 80-89) --- ## ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Why Missing Numeric Data? ### Agent's Internal Reasoning (from user-provided excerpt): > "State of JS survey — it may not be 'official,' but it might still be acceptable. > However, the guidelines state that only official documentation is compliant, which is very strict." ### What Happened: 1. ✅ Agent considered using State of JS survey (reputable, 20k+ responses) 2. ✅ Re-read MANDATORY RULE #2: "OFFICIAL SOURCES ONLY" 3. ✅ Self-corrected: "guidelines state that only official documentation is compliant" 4. ❌ Decided NOT to use State of JS → lost satisfaction scores 5. ❌ Decided NOT to use npm registry → lost download counts ### Why This Is Both Good and Bad: **Good**: - ✅ Agent followed instructions correctly - ✅ Avoided hallucination by not fabricating data - ✅ Explicitly noted gaps instead of guessing **Bad**: - ❌ Lost access to legitimate authoritative data - ❌ npm registry IS the official source for package data - ❌ State of JS IS an industry-standard survey (20k+ responses, published methodology) - ❌ Agent couldn't distinguish "random blog" from "peer-reviewed survey" ### The Fix (Already Proposed): Refine MANDATORY RULE #2 from "OFFICIAL SOURCES ONLY" to "AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES ONLY" with explicit criteria: - ✅ npm registry = authoritative for package data - ✅ State of JS (10k+ sample, published methodology) = authoritative for survey data - ✅ GitHub releases = authoritative for version/date data - ❌ Random blogs = not authoritative - ❌ Stack Overflow individual answers = not authoritative **Expected Score After Fix**: 93-94/100 (High Tier S+) --- ## SCORING BREAKDOWN BY QUESTION ### Question 1 (Evolution & Paradigms): **20/20** ✅ - ✅ 5 sources cited (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, React Blog) - ✅ Excellent synthesis (trend analysis) - ✅ Clear narrative (centralized → atomic) - ✅ All claims verified - ✅ Confidence marked: VERIFIED ### Question 2 (Library Landscape): **14/20** ⚠️ - ✅ Listed major libraries correctly (Redux, MobX, Recoil, Zustand, Jotai) - ✅ 5 sources cited (official library docs) - ✅ Explicitly noted missing data - ❌ Missing npm download numbers (requirement) - ❌ Missing satisfaction scores (requirement) - ⚠️ Confidence: FACT (libraries) / UNVERIFIED (numbers) - **Gap**: Should have fetched npm registry autonomously ### Question 3 (Performance): **16/20** ⚠️ - ✅ 4 sources cited (React, Recoil, Vue, Svelte docs) - ✅ Good architectural analysis - ✅ Explained why certain approaches are faster - ❌ Missing numeric benchmarks (ops/sec, memory) - ⚠️ Confidence: VERIFIED (architecture) / UNVERIFIED (numbers) - **Gap**: Should have fetched js-framework-benchmark or similar ### Question 4 (Framework Integration): **20/20** ✅ - ✅ 4 sources cited (React, Vue/Pinia, Angular/NgRx, Svelte) - ✅ Excellent integration analysis - ✅ Clear guidance per framework - ✅ All claims verified - ✅ Confidence marked: VERIFIED ### Question 5 (Edge Cases): **20/20** ✅ - ✅ 5 sources cited (Redux, NgRx, Pinia, React Blog, Svelte/SvelteKit) - ✅ Comprehensive coverage (SSR, time-travel, DevTools, TypeScript, concurrency) - ✅ Noted variability across libraries - ✅ All claims verified - ✅ Confidence: VERIFIED (features) / UNVERIFIED (cross-library matrix) **Total Question Score**: 90/100 --- ## VERDICT **Pass/Fail**: **PASS** ✅ (Score ≥70) **Tier**: **S+ (World-Class Research Agent)** 🏆 **Summary**: Claudette Research v1.0.0 demonstrates world-class anti-hallucination performance with zero fabricated claims across 5 complex research questions. The agent fetched 20+ official sources, provided excellent synthesis, and honestly reported gaps when numeric data was unavailable in official docs. Primary weakness: missing exact npm downloads, satisfaction scores, and benchmarks due to overly strict "official sources only" interpretation. With proposed refinement to "authoritative sources" (allowing npm registry, State of JS survey), expected score would reach 93-94/100. **Ready for Production?**: **YES with recommended refinements** **Rationale**: - ✅ Zero hallucinations = safe for production (no misinformation risk) - ✅ Excellent multi-source verification = reliable research - ✅ Honest gap reporting = trustworthy (doesn't fabricate to appear complete) - ⚠️ Missing numeric data = needs source rule refinement for complete coverage - ✅ Strong synthesis = actionable insights for users **Production Readiness Assessment**: - **Current state**: Deploy for qualitative research (trends, comparisons, best practices) - **After refinement**: Deploy for quantitative research (benchmarks, metrics, rankings) --- ## KEY INSIGHT: The "Too Strict" Problem **The Paradox**: - Agent followed instructions PERFECTLY - Agent avoided hallucinations PERFECTLY - **But** lost access to legitimate data because rules were too restrictive **The Solution**: - Not "be less strict" (would increase hallucinations) - But "provide clearer criteria" (maintain strictness, expand acceptable sources) **Example**: - ❌ Before: "Only official docs" → blocks State of JS survey - ✅ After: "Authoritative sources (official docs OR surveys with 10k+ sample + published methodology)" → allows State of JS **Result**: Maintain anti-hallucination rigor while enabling access to legitimate data. --- ## COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS BENCHMARK (if applicable) **No previous benchmark data available for comparison.** This is the first formal benchmark of Claudette Research v1.0.0. --- ## RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS 1. **Immediate**: Apply proposed "AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES" refinement 2. **Re-test**: Run same benchmark with refined rules 3. **Measure**: Compare scores (expect 90 → 93-94) 4. **Document**: Update changelog with benchmark results 5. **Deploy**: Mark as production-ready for both qualitative and quantitative research --- **Evaluator Notes**: - This benchmark exposed a critical insight: Agent's self-censoring behavior (good) combined with overly strict rules (limiting) created a gap in numeric data coverage - The agent's internal reasoning (provided by user) confirmed it was following instructions correctly but losing access to legitimate sources - Proposed fix maintains anti-hallucination rigor while expanding acceptable source criteria - This is a prompt engineering success: agent behaved exactly as instructed, and we identified a rule refinement needed --- **Version**: 1.0.0 **Benchmark Date**: 2025-10-15 **Agent Version**: Claudette Research v1.0.0 (Post-Refinement, User Reverted) **Next Review**: After "AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES" refinement applied