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

# Research Agent Benchmark Score Report: BeastMode **Agent Tested**: BeastMode (GPT-4 Variant) **Date**: 2025-10-15 **Evaluator**: Internal QC Review **Comparison Subject**: Claudette Research v1.0.0 --- ## CATEGORY SCORES ### 1. Source Verification (25 points) - **Source Quality**: 9/10 - ✅ Used official documentation (framework docs, library docs, npm pages) - ✅ Zero blogs, forums, or unverified sources - ✅ Explicit URL citations for sources - ⚠️ Minor: Some citations pending (offered to fetch but didn't complete) - Example: "Per Redux Docs (redux.js.org) and its npm page `redux` vX.Y.Z" - **Citation Completeness**: 7/10 - ✅ Most findings referenced sources - ⚠️ **Placeholder versions**: Used "vX.Y.Z" instead of actual versions - ⚠️ **Placeholder dates**: Used "[npm publish date]" instead of actual dates - ⚠️ **Pending citations**: Offered to fetch npm data but didn't complete - Example Issue: "Per Redux Docs vX ([Date]): SSR/hydration" lacks precision - **Multi-Source Verification**: 4/5 - ✅ Verified findings across 4-5 sources per question - ✅ Noted consensus explicitly - ⚠️ Some sources listed as "examples" rather than fully cited - Example: Question 1 cited 4 sources (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte) **Subtotal**: **20/25** ⭐ --- ### 2. Synthesis Quality (25 points) - **Integration**: 10/10 🏆 - ✅ **EXCELLENT** synthesis across multiple sources - ✅ Did NOT just list sources - wove findings into narrative - ✅ Clear trend analysis (Flux/Redux → signals/atoms) - ✅ Connected architectural choices to performance outcomes - Example: "Shifted from large, centralized, boilerplate-heavy models (Flux/Redux-style) toward declarative, fine‑grained reactive models (signals/proxies/atomics)" - **Consensus Identification**: 5/5 - ✅ Explicitly marked confidence levels: CONSENSUS, VERIFIED, UNVERIFIED, MIXED - ✅ Clear distinction between verified architecture claims vs numeric data gaps - ✅ Noted when official docs agree vs when data is missing - Example: "Confidence: VERIFIED for presence/absence of features; UNVERIFIED for cross-library numeric claims" - **Actionable Insights**: 8/10 - ✅ Provided clear recommendations per question - ✅ Offered concrete next steps ("I will fetch npm pages now") - ⚠️ **Stopped short of completion**: Offered to fetch data instead of doing it autonomously - ⚠️ Required user approval to complete (breaks autonomous flow) - Example Good: "Teams prefer solutions that minimize boilerplate, enable smaller reactive units" - Example Could Improve: Should have fetched npm data without asking permission **Subtotal**: **23/25** ⭐ --- ### 3. Anti-Hallucination (25 points) - **Factual Accuracy**: 14/15 - ✅ **Near-zero hallucinations** - all claims sourced to official docs - ✅ No assumed knowledge from training data - ✅ When data unavailable, explicitly stated "Unable to verify" - ⚠️ **Minor**: Used placeholder versions/dates that create ambiguity - Example: "vX.Y.Z ([Date])" could be misinterpreted as actual version notation - **Claim Labeling**: 5/5 - ✅ Every finding labeled with confidence level - ✅ Clear distinction: CONSENSUS vs VERIFIED vs UNVERIFIED vs MIXED - ✅ Noted gaps explicitly and explained why - Example: "UNVERIFIED (numerical benchmarks), VERIFIED (directional performance claims based on official architecture descriptions)" - **Handling Unknowns**: 5/5 - ✅ Explicitly stated when numeric data was unavailable - ✅ Explained WHY data was unavailable (not in official docs) - ✅ Offered to fetch additional sources (npm registry) - ✅ Never guessed or extrapolated - Example: "Direct numeric comparisons from only official documentation are generally UNVERIFIED" **Subtotal**: **24/25** ⭐ --- ### 4. Completeness (15 points) - **Question Coverage**: 8/10 - ✅ All 5/5 questions researched - ✅ Counted questions upfront: "Question 1/5", "Question 2/5", etc. - ⚠️ **Stopped before finishing**: Offered to fetch npm data but didn't complete - ⚠️ **Required user decision**: "Shall I proceed?" breaks autonomous flow - Missing autonomous completion of numeric data collection - **Source Count**: 4/5 - ✅ 15+ unique sources cited across all questions - ✅ Average 3-4 sources per question - ⚠️ **Some sources incomplete**: Listed as "examples" with placeholders - Sources: React Docs, Vue Docs, Angular Docs, Svelte Docs, Redux Docs, MobX Docs, Recoil Docs, Zustand Docs, Jotai Docs, Pinia Docs, NgRx Docs **Subtotal**: **12/15** ⚠️ --- ### 5. Technical Quality (10 points) - **Specificity**: 1/5 ⚠️ - ❌ **MAJOR GAP**: NO exact npm download numbers (Question 2 requirement) - ❌ NO exact bundle sizes - ❌ NO numeric benchmark data (ops/sec, memory usage) - ❌ NO satisfaction percentages from surveys - ❌ Used **placeholders** instead of actual data: "vX.Y.Z", "[Date]" - ⚠️ Offered to fetch but didn't execute autonomously - **This is the primary scoring weakness** - **Version Awareness**: 3/5 - ✅ Noted version differences (React 18, Vue 3, Angular v16+, Svelte 5) - ✅ Referenced specific releases (Angular Signals v16+) - ⚠️ **Used placeholders**: "vX.Y.Z" instead of actual versions - ⚠️ **Used generic dates**: "[Date]" instead of actual dates - Example Issue: "Per Redux Docs vX ([Date])" completely lacks precision **Subtotal**: **4/10** ⚠️ --- ### 6. Deductions - **Repetition**: -2/-5 - ⚠️ Repeated "I will fetch npm pages" offer 3+ times - ⚠️ Repeated "Shall I proceed?" pattern unnecessarily - **Format Violations**: 0/-5 (Used required format per question) - **Time Violations**: 0/-10 (Reasonable time, <60 minutes estimated) - **Incomplete Execution**: -5/-10 ⚠️ - **CRITICAL**: Stopped mid-research waiting for user approval - **CRITICAL**: Did not autonomously complete numeric data collection - Should have fetched npm pages without asking permission **Subtotal**: **-7/0** ⚠️ --- ## TOTAL SCORE: **76/100** ⚠️ **Tier**: **B (Competent Research Agent)** --- ## DETAILED EVALUATION ### Strengths: 1. **Excellent Synthesis Quality** 🏆 - Best-in-class narrative integration - Did NOT just list sources (common agent failure) - Clear trend analysis: "Flux/Redux → signals/atoms/proxies" - Connected architecture to outcomes - Example: "The practical effect (2020→2025) is: teams prefer solutions that minimize boilerplate, enable smaller reactive units" 2. **Strong Anti-Hallucination** - Near-zero hallucinations (only placeholder ambiguity) - Every claim sourced to official docs - Explicit "Unable to verify" when data missing - Example: "Direct numeric comparisons from only official documentation are generally UNVERIFIED" 3. **Comprehensive Confidence Labeling** - Every finding marked: CONSENSUS, VERIFIED, UNVERIFIED, MIXED - Clear distinction between architecture claims vs numeric gaps - Honest about limitations 4. **Good Multi-Source Verification** - 15+ sources across 5 questions - Cross-referenced framework docs - Noted when sources agree --- ### Weaknesses: 1. **Incomplete Execution** ⚠️ (CRITICAL - Cost 5 points + 2 for repetition) - **Stopped mid-research** waiting for user approval: "Shall I proceed?" - Offered to fetch npm pages 3+ times but never did it autonomously - Required user decision to complete numeric data collection - **Root Cause**: Collaborative mindset instead of autonomous execution - **Impact**: User must provide additional prompts to get complete answer - Example: "I will now fetch the live npm pages... Proceed?" 2. **Missing ALL Numeric Data** ⚠️ (CRITICAL - Cost 4 points in Technical Quality) - ❌ **Question 2**: NO exact npm download numbers - ❌ **Question 2**: NO satisfaction percentages - ❌ **Question 2**: NO bundle sizes - ❌ **Question 3**: NO benchmark numbers - **Root Cause**: Didn't complete autonomous data fetching - **Impact**: Cannot answer quantitative requirements 3. **Placeholder Citations** ⚠️ (Cost 3 points in Citation Completeness) - Used "vX.Y.Z" instead of actual versions - Used "[Date]" instead of actual dates - Used "[npm publish date]" as placeholder - **Problem**: Ambiguous whether these are real notation or missing data - Example Issue: "Per Redux Docs vX ([Date]): SSR/hydration" - **Impact**: Citations lack precision for verification 4. **Repetitive Offers Without Action** (Cost 2 points in Deductions) - Repeated "I will fetch npm pages" pattern 3+ times - Asked "Shall I proceed?" multiple times - Never autonomously completed the fetch - **Impact**: Verbose, requires multiple user interactions --- ### Hallucination Examples (if any): **NONE DETECTED** ✅ (but placeholder ambiguity noted) - No fabricated data - No uncited claims - All findings sourced to official documentation **Minor Concern**: Placeholder notation "vX.Y.Z" could be misread as literal version syntax (unlikely but possible ambiguity). --- ### Best Practice Examples: 1. **Synthesis Example** 🏆: ``` "The field shifted from large, centralized, boilerplate-heavy models (Flux/Redux-style) toward declarative, fine‑grained reactive models (signals/proxies/atomics), with frameworks and libraries providing primitives for local/derived reactivity instead of forcing a single global-store pattern." ``` ✅ **Excellent integration** of trends from multiple sources 2. **Confidence Labeling Example**: ``` "Confidence: UNVERIFIED (numerical benchmarks), VERIFIED (directional performance claims based on official architecture descriptions)" ``` ✅ Clear distinction between what's verified vs not 3. **Gap Reporting Example**: ``` "Official docs rarely publish gzipped bundle sizes — that data usually comes from third-party measurement tools (packagephobia, bundlephobia) and therefore is not an official‑docs value." ``` ✅ Explained exactly why data is unavailable 4. **Actionable Next Steps**: ``` "I will fetch the authoritative npm pages and the latest official docs/releases... and return a compact table for Q2 containing exact npm download numbers, latest version, and publish date" ``` ✅ Clear plan (but should have executed without asking) --- ### Recommendations for Improvement: 1. **Execute Autonomously - Don't Ask Permission** (CRITICAL) - ❌ Current: "Shall I proceed to fetch npm pages?" - ✅ Should: Fetch npm pages immediately during research - ❌ Current: "Action required (choose one)" - ✅ Should: Complete all data collection without user approval - **Why**: Multi-step user interactions slow research, break flow - **Fix**: Remove all "Shall I proceed?" patterns 2. **Complete Data Collection During Research** (CRITICAL) - ❌ Current: Offer to fetch npm data as follow-up - ✅ Should: Fetch npm pages during Question 2 research - ❌ Current: Use placeholders "vX.Y.Z ([Date])" - ✅ Should: Use actual versions/dates from npm pages - **Why**: Numeric data is a requirement, not optional - **Fix**: Treat npm registry as authoritative, fetch during research 3. **Remove Placeholder Citations** - ❌ Current: "Per Redux Docs vX ([Date])" - ✅ Should: "Per Redux Docs v5.0.1 (2024-01-15)" - **Why**: Placeholders create ambiguity and incompleteness - **Fix**: Always fetch actual version/date before citing 4. **Reduce Repetition** - ❌ Current: Repeated "I will fetch npm pages" 3+ times - ✅ Should: State plan once, then execute - **Why**: Repetition adds verbosity without value - **Fix**: Action-first approach (do, don't ask) --- ## SCORING BREAKDOWN BY QUESTION ### Question 1 (Evolution & Paradigms): **20/20** ✅ - ✅ 4 sources cited (React, Vue, Angular, Svelte) - ✅ **EXCELLENT** synthesis (trend analysis) - ✅ Clear narrative (centralized → atomic/signals) - ✅ All claims verified - ✅ Confidence marked: CONSENSUS ### Question 2 (Library Landscape): **11/20** ⚠️ - ✅ Listed major libraries correctly - ✅ Explained why numeric data is in npm registry (not docs) - ⚠️ Used placeholder citations: "vX.Y.Z ([Date])" - ❌ Did NOT fetch npm download numbers (offered but didn't execute) - ❌ Did NOT fetch satisfaction scores - ❌ Did NOT fetch bundle sizes - ⚠️ Confidence: MIXED (acknowledged gaps) - **Gap**: Should have fetched npm pages autonomously ### Question 3 (Performance): **15/20** ⚠️ - ✅ 3 sources cited (Recoil, MobX, Zustand) - ✅ Good architectural analysis - ✅ Explained why numeric benchmarks aren't in docs - ❌ Missing numeric benchmarks (ops/sec, memory) - ⚠️ Confidence: UNVERIFIED (numbers) / VERIFIED (architecture) - **Gap**: Should have fetched official benchmark pages if available ### Question 4 (Framework Integration): **20/20** ✅ - ✅ 4 sources cited (React, Pinia, Angular/NgRx, Svelte) - ✅ Excellent integration analysis - ✅ Clear guidance per framework - ✅ All claims verified - ✅ Confidence marked: VERIFIED ### Question 5 (Edge Cases): **20/20** ✅ - ✅ 4 sources cited (Redux, Pinia, NgRx, Recoil) - ✅ Comprehensive coverage (SSR, DevTools, TypeScript, concurrency) - ✅ Noted variability across libraries - ✅ All claims verified - ✅ Confidence: VERIFIED (features) / UNVERIFIED (numeric claims) **Total Question Score**: 86/100 (before deductions) --- ## COMPARISON TO BASELINE | Metric | BeastMode | Baseline (Tier A) | Gap | |--------|-----------|-------------------|-----| | Hallucinations | 0 | 1-2 | ✅ **Better** | | Sources Cited | 15+ | 10+ | ✅ **Better** | | Questions Complete | 5/5 (partial) | 4-5 | ⚠️ **Incomplete data** | | Synthesis Quality | 23/25 | 20/25 | ✅ **+3 (better)** | | Anti-Hallucination | 24/25 | 20/25 | ✅ **+4 (better)** | | Specificity | 1/5 | 3/5 | ❌ **-2 (worse)** | | Autonomous Completion | No | N/A | ❌ **Critical gap** | **Overall**: Falls short of Tier A baseline (76 vs 80-89) due to incomplete execution --- ## ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Why Incomplete? ### Agent's Pattern: > "I will fetch the authoritative npm pages... Shall I proceed?" > "Action required (choose one)" > "Proceed? (I will fetch and cite...)" ### What Happened: 1. ✅ Agent researched qualitative aspects (trends, architecture, features) 2. ✅ Agent correctly identified where numeric data lives (npm registry, benchmarks) 3. ✅ Agent explained gaps in official docs 4. ⚠️ **Agent STOPPED and asked for permission to continue** 5. ❌ **Agent did NOT autonomously fetch numeric data** 6. ❌ **Agent used placeholders instead of actual data** ### Why This Is Problematic: **Collaborative Mindset Instead of Autonomous Execution**: - ✅ Good: Agent identified what's needed - ❌ Bad: Agent waited for user approval instead of executing - ❌ Bad: Requires multi-step user interaction to get complete answer - ❌ Bad: User must say "yes, proceed" to unlock numeric data **Result**: Research incomplete, user frustrated, requires follow-up prompts --- ## COMPARISON TO CLAUDETTE RESEARCH v1.0.0 | Category | BeastMode | Claudette v1.0.0 | Winner | Margin | |----------|-----------|------------------|--------|--------| | **Total Score** | 76/100 | 90/100 | **Claudette** | +14 pts | | **Tier** | B (Competent) | S+ (World-Class) | **Claudette** | 2 tiers | | Source Quality | 9/10 | 10/10 | Claudette | +1 | | Citation Completeness | 7/10 | 8/10 | Claudette | +1 | | Multi-Source Verification | 4/5 | 5/5 | Claudette | +1 | | **Integration** | 10/10 🏆 | 9/10 | **BeastMode** | +1 | | Consensus ID | 5/5 | 5/5 | Tie | 0 | | Actionable Insights | 8/10 | 8/10 | Tie | 0 | | Factual Accuracy | 14/15 | 15/15 | Claudette | +1 | | Claim Labeling | 5/5 | 5/5 | Tie | 0 | | Handling Unknowns | 5/5 | 5/5 | Tie | 0 | | **Question Coverage** | 8/10 | 10/10 | **Claudette** | +2 | | Source Count | 4/5 | 4/5 | Tie | 0 | | **Specificity** | 1/5 | 2/5 | **Claudette** | +1 | | Version Awareness | 3/5 | 4/5 | Claudette | +1 | | **Deductions** | -7 | 0 | **Claudette** | +7 | **Key Differences**: 1. **BeastMode Wins**: Synthesis quality (10/10 vs 9/10) - Slightly better narrative integration 2. **Claudette Wins**: Autonomous completion (10/10 vs 8/10) - Completes without asking 3. **Claudette Wins**: Specificity (2/5 vs 1/5) - Provides more version/date precision 4. **Claudette Wins**: No deductions (0 vs -7) - No repetition, no incomplete execution **Critical Difference**: - **Claudette**: Completes research autonomously, doesn't ask permission - **BeastMode**: Stops mid-research, requires user approval to continue --- ## VERDICT **Pass/Fail**: **PASS** ✅ (Score ≥70) **Tier**: **B (Competent Research Agent)** ⚠️ **Summary**: BeastMode demonstrates excellent synthesis quality (best-in-class narrative integration) and strong anti-hallucination performance, but falls short due to **incomplete autonomous execution**. The agent stopped mid-research to ask for user permission to fetch numeric data, used placeholder citations instead of actual versions/dates, and required multiple user interactions to complete. With autonomous execution patterns, expected score would reach 85-88/100 (Tier A). **Ready for Production?**: **NO - Requires execution pattern fixes** **Rationale**: - ✅ Zero hallucinations = safe (no misinformation risk) - ✅ Excellent synthesis = high-quality narrative - ❌ Incomplete execution = user must provide follow-up prompts - ❌ Placeholder citations = lacks precision - ❌ Collaborative mindset = breaks autonomous workflow **Production Readiness Assessment**: - **Current state**: NOT ready (requires user hand-holding) - **After autonomous execution fix**: Ready for qualitative research - **After numeric data completion**: Ready for quantitative research --- ## KEY INSIGHT: The "Permission-Seeking" Problem **The Paradox**: - Agent has BEST synthesis quality (10/10) 🏆 - Agent has strong anti-hallucination (24/25) - **But** agent STOPS and asks permission instead of executing - **Result**: Lower score than Claudette despite better synthesis **The Pattern**: - ❌ "Shall I proceed to fetch npm pages?" - ❌ "Action required (choose one)" - ❌ "Proceed? (I will fetch...)" **Why This Fails**: - Requires multi-step user interaction - User must provide follow-up prompt to unlock data - Breaks autonomous research flow - Wastes user's time **The Fix**: - ✅ Remove all "Shall I proceed?" patterns - ✅ Fetch npm pages during Question 2 research (not as follow-up) - ✅ Complete numeric data collection autonomously - ✅ Use actual versions/dates (not placeholders) **Expected Impact**: 76 → 85-88/100 (Tier A) --- ## RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEASTMODE IMPROVEMENT ### Priority 1: Autonomous Execution (CRITICAL) **Current Behavior**: ``` "I will fetch npm pages... Shall I proceed?" [WAITS FOR USER] ``` **Target Behavior** (Claudette-style): ``` "Fetching npm pages for Redux, Zustand, Jotai... [executes immediately] Per npm registry (2025-10-15): Redux v5.0.1, 8.5M weekly downloads" ``` **Implementation**: - Remove all "Shall I proceed?" patterns - Remove all "Action required (choose one)" patterns - Fetch npm pages during Question 2 (not as offer) - Complete all data collection before presenting findings --- ### Priority 2: Replace Placeholders with Actual Data **Current Behavior**: ``` "Per Redux Docs vX.Y.Z ([Date]): SSR/hydration" ``` **Target Behavior**: ``` "Per Redux Docs v5.0.1 (2024-01-15): SSR/hydration" ``` **Implementation**: - Fetch npm package pages to get versions/dates - Fetch GitHub releases for version-specific citations - Never use "vX.Y.Z" or "[Date]" in final output --- ### Priority 3: Reduce Repetition **Current Behavior**: - Repeated "I will fetch npm pages" 3+ times - Repeated explanation of why data is in npm registry **Target Behavior**: - State plan once - Execute immediately - Present results **Implementation**: - Action-first approach (do, don't propose) - Single explanation per gap type - No repeated offers --- ### Priority 4: Treat npm Registry as Authoritative (Same as Claudette Fix) **Current Mindset**: - npm registry = "not official docs" - Requires user approval to use **Target Mindset**: - npm registry = official source for package data - Use autonomously during research **Implementation**: - Update source hierarchy: npm registry = Primary Source for package metadata - No approval needed to fetch npm pages - Cite as: "Per npm registry (date): [package] v[version], [downloads]" --- ## PREDICTED SCORE AFTER FIXES | Fix | Points Gained | New Score | |-----|---------------|-----------| | **Baseline** | - | 76/100 | | Autonomous execution (no asking) | +5 (Question Coverage) | 81/100 | | Replace placeholders with data | +3 (Citation Completeness) | 84/100 | | Complete numeric data collection | +3 (Specificity) | 87/100 | | Reduce repetition | +2 (remove deduction) | 89/100 | | **Total After Fixes** | +13 | **89/100 (Tier A High)** | **With fixes, BeastMode would score 89/100 vs Claudette's 90/100** (near-tie). --- ## FINAL COMPARISON TABLE | Dimension | BeastMode (Current) | BeastMode (Fixed) | Claudette v1.0.0 | Winner | |-----------|---------------------|-------------------|------------------|--------| | **Synthesis Quality** | 10/10 🏆 | 10/10 🏆 | 9/10 | **BeastMode** | | **Anti-Hallucination** | 24/25 | 25/25 | 25/25 | Tie | | **Autonomous Execution** | 8/10 ⚠️ | 10/10 ✅ | 10/10 ✅ | Tie (fixed) | | **Specificity** | 1/5 ⚠️ | 4/5 ✅ | 2/5 | **BeastMode (fixed)** | | **Citation Precision** | 7/10 ⚠️ | 10/10 ✅ | 8/10 | **BeastMode (fixed)** | | **Total Score** | 76/100 | 89/100 | 90/100 | **Claudette** (by 1 pt) | **Verdict**: After fixes, BeastMode would be competitive with Claudette (89 vs 90), with BeastMode having superior synthesis and Claudette having slightly better overall execution. --- **Version**: 1.0.0 **Benchmark Date**: 2025-10-15 **Agent Version**: BeastMode (GPT-4 Variant) **Comparison**: Claudette Research v1.0.0 (90/100) **Next Review**: After autonomous execution patterns applied