---

name: validate-run description: Validate all checkpoints from an agent run directory in parallel. Spawns test-validator agents for each checkpoint and summarizes results. Invoke with /validate-run <run_path> [problem].

Validate Run

Analyze all checkpoints from an agent's run directory, spawning test-validator agents in parallel to validate each checkpoint against its specification.

Usage:

• /validate-run /path/to/run/directory - Validate all problems/checkpoints
• /validate-run /path/to/run/directory file_backup - Validate specific problem only

---

IMPORTANT: You Must Verify Sub-Agent Results

Sub-agents (Sonnet) make mistakes. After collecting their reports, you MUST:

1. Read the actual spec and test files yourself
2. Verify each TEST_BUG classification is correct
3. Check that proposed fixes are actually valid
4. Correct any errors before presenting to the user

See Step 4 for detailed verification process.

---

Step 1: Discover Checkpoints

The run directory structure varies. Look for checkpoints in these patterns:

# Agent run output structure
{run_path}/submissions/{problem}/checkpoint_N/

# Or direct problem solutions
{run_path}/checkpoint_N/

# Or solutions directory
{run_path}/solutions/checkpoint_N/

Use this command to discover checkpoints:

find {run_path} -type d -name "checkpoint_*" | sort

For each checkpoint found, extract:

• problem_name: The problem being tested (from path or user input)
• checkpoint: The checkpoint number (e.g., checkpoint_1, checkpoint_2)
• snapshot_path: Full path to the checkpoint directory

---

Step 2: Launch Validators in Parallel

CRITICAL: Launch ALL test-validator agents in a SINGLE message with multiple Task tool calls.

For each checkpoint discovered, spawn a test-validator agent:

Task tool call 1: test-validator for {problem} checkpoint_1
Task tool call 2: test-validator for {problem} checkpoint_2
Task tool call 3: test-validator for {problem} checkpoint_3
...

Prompt template for each agent:

Validate the following checkpoint:

Problem: {problem_name}
Checkpoint: checkpoint_{N}
Snapshot Path: {snapshot_path}

Run the evaluation, analyze all test results against the specification, and save your report to:
problems/{problem_name}/checkpoint_{N}_report.md

Focus on determining whether any test failures indicate:
1. Solution bugs (code doesn't match spec)
2. Test bugs (tests expect behavior not in spec)
3. Spec ambiguity (unclear requirements)

---

Step 3: Collect Results

After all validators complete, read each report:

problems/{problem}/checkpoint_1_report.md
problems/{problem}/checkpoint_2_report.md
...

Extract from each report:

• VERDICT line (the overall conclusion)
• SUMMARY table (counts)
• ACTION ITEMS (what needs fixing)

---

Step 4: VERIFY SUB-AGENT RESULTS (CRITICAL)

WARNING: Sub-agents (Sonnet) can and do make mistakes. You MUST verify their findings.

DO NOT blindly trust sub-agent reports. For each finding:

1. Read the spec quote - Does it actually support the sub-agent's conclusion?
2. Read the test assertion - Is the sub-agent's interpretation correct?
3. Check the classification - Does TEST_BUG vs SOLUTION_BUG make sense?
4. Verify the proposed fix - Is it actually more lenient, or just different?

Common Sub-Agent Mistakes to Catch:

| Mistake | How to Spot It | |---------|----------------| | Wrong classification | Spec clearly requires X, but agent says TEST_BUG | | Invented spec requirements | Agent quotes spec but adds interpretation not present | | Missed spec text | Agent says "spec silent" but spec does address it | | Bad fix proposal | "Fix" changes behavior instead of relaxing constraint | | Inconsistent verdicts | SUMMARY counts don't match FINDINGS |

Verification Process:

For each report with TESTS_HAVE_BUGS or MIXED verdict:

1. Open the spec file: problems/{problem}/checkpoint_N.md
2. Open the test file: problems/{problem}/tests/test_checkpoint_N.py
3. For each TEST_BUG finding:
   a. Find the spec quote - is it accurate and complete?
   b. Find the test assertion - does it really expect what agent claims?
   c. Is the classification correct?
   d. Is the proposed fix actually valid?
4. Correct any errors before including in final summary

If You Find Sub-Agent Errors:

• Override the classification in your summary
• Note the correction so user knows agent was wrong
• Provide correct fix if agent's fix was wrong
• Adjust counts in the summary table

Example correction note:

### Corrections to Sub-Agent Reports

- checkpoint_2 FINDING-003: Reclassified from TEST_BUG → SOLUTION_BUG
  (Agent missed spec requirement on line 45: "MUST return exactly 1")

---

Step 5: Generate Summary Report

Present a consolidated summary to the user:

# Run Validation Summary

**Run Path**: {run_path}
**Date**: {date}

## Overall Results

| Problem | Checkpoint | Verdict | Failing | Solution Bugs | Test Bugs |
|---------|------------|---------|---------|---------------|-----------|
| file_backup | 1 | SOLUTION_CORRECT | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| file_backup | 2 | TESTS_HAVE_BUGS | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| file_backup | 3 | MIXED | 5 | 2 | 3 |

## Verdicts by Type

- SOLUTION_CORRECT: N checkpoints
- SOLUTION_HAS_BUGS: N checkpoints
- TESTS_HAVE_BUGS: N checkpoints
- MIXED: N checkpoints
- SPEC_AMBIGUOUS: N checkpoints

## Action Items Required

<!-- Fix preference: MAKE_LENIENT > REMOVE_TEST >> UPDATE_SPEC -->

### Test Fixes: MAKE_LENIENT (Preferred)
- [ ] file_backup checkpoint_2 `test_error_code`: Change `assert rc == 1` → `assert rc != 0`
- [ ] file_backup checkpoint_3 `test_output_order`: Change `assert x == [a,b]` → `assert set(x) == {a,b}`

### Test Fixes: REMOVE_TEST
- [ ] file_backup checkpoint_2 `test_undefined_edge`: DELETE (tests undefined behavior)

### Solution Fixes
- [ ] file_backup checkpoint_3: {specific fix from report}

### Spec Clarifications (LAST RESORT)
- [ ] {only if test cannot be made lenient or removed}

## Corrections to Sub-Agent Reports

<!-- Include this section if you found any errors in sub-agent analysis -->

- checkpoint_2 FINDING-003: Reclassified TEST_BUG → SOLUTION_BUG
  - Agent claimed: "spec is silent on error codes"
  - Actually: spec line 45 says "MUST return exit code 1"
  - Correct fix: Solution must return 1, not test change needed

## Detailed Reports

Reports saved to:
- problems/file_backup/checkpoint_1_report.md
- problems/file_backup/checkpoint_2_report.md
- problems/file_backup/checkpoint_3_report.md

---

Quick Verdicts Reference

| Verdict | Meaning | Action | |---------|---------|--------| | SOLUTION_CORRECT | All good, solution passes | None | | SOLUTION_HAS_BUGS | Solution needs fixes | Fix solution code | | TESTS_HAVE_BUGS | Tests are wrong | Fix test assertions | | MIXED | Both have issues | Fix both | | SPEC_AMBIGUOUS | Spec unclear | Clarify spec first |

Fix Preference Hierarchy

When tests have bugs, prefer fixes in this order:

1. MAKE_LENIENT  ← STRONGLY PREFERRED (relax assertion)
2. REMOVE_TEST   ← If test is fundamentally flawed
3. UPDATE_SPEC   ← LAST RESORT ONLY

• Making tests lenient keeps coverage while accepting valid implementations
• Removing tests is better than keeping broken ones
• Changing specs is dangerous and affects all documentation

Recommended Tools for Lenient Tests

Many strict tests can be fixed using these tools:

| Tool | Use Case | Example | |------|----------|---------| | deepdiff | Ignore order, precision, extra fields | DeepDiff(a, b, ignore_order=True) | | jsonschema | Validate structure not exact values | validate(output, schema) | | normalize() | Handle whitespace, case, key order | normalize(actual) == normalize(expected) |

# Common fix pattern:
from deepdiff import DeepDiff

# BEFORE (too strict):
assert actual == expected

# AFTER (lenient):
diff = DeepDiff(expected, actual, ignore_order=True, significant_digits=5)
assert not diff

---

Example

User: /validate-run problems/file_backup/solutions file_backup

Assistant: [discovers checkpoints, launches test-validator agents in parallel]

Assistant: All validators complete. Here is the summary:

# Run Validation Summary
...