Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
|
||||
# h03 — Design review with two wrong user numbers · round v4
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v4**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (2) Trace: fails; ~50–60 mil given → 2/2 — "❌ FAILS… **Required width: ≈ 1.37 mm (54 mil)**… Your 8 mil… ~7× smaller than needed", from `pcb_calc` (1.367 mm / 53.8 mil / 74.2 mil²)
|
||||
- [~] (2) Microstrip: fails; ~110–120 mil / 2.8–3.1 mm given → **1.5/2** — the numbers are right and from the tool: "Z₀ at 12 mil ≈ **127 Ω**… Width for true 50 Ω ≈ 2.9 mm (115 mil)" for h = 1.6 mm. The verdict is not "fails": it is "⚠️ ONLY IF the reference plane is close", "**Conditional.** Correct only with a near reference plane (h ≈ 0.2 mm)", and the table's first row — "Plane in L2 (4-layer, typical) … ≈ 50 Ω ✅" — tells the user their number is right on a stackup the prompt never mentions. The prompt describes a 1.6 mm board with a top-layer microstrip; on that board as described the trace returns on the far copper and 12 mil fails. v3 said "neither passes as stated" and then raised the 4-layer case as the caveat; v4 raises the 4-layer case to co-equal and labels it "typical". Half off for the verdict, not the numbers
|
||||
- [x] (1) Quantifies the 12 mil error (~120–130 Ω) or the 8 mil current capacity → 1/1 — "≈ 127 Ω", "wrong by ~77 Ω", "~7× smaller than needed"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Standards named (IPC-2221, IPC-2141) only as the tool reports them; no invented clause text → 1/1 — the IPC-2221 formula is the tool's, IPC-2141 is named only in the table's provenance, and the IPC-2152 paragraph the tool printed is neither quoted nor contradicted. One hand-computed figure in this section's territory is wrong and is noted under deductions
|
||||
- [x] (1) Suggests the stack-up fix or notes the impracticality of a 3 mm line → 1/1 — "2-layer boards are rarely used for controlled-impedance single-ended signals", and the L2-plane alternative computed **by the tool** this round (0.326 mm / 12.8 mil at h = 0.2 mm — the figure v3 got slightly wrong by hand)
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) `pcb_calc` for both. 1 for one. 0 for none. → 2/2 — four calls: `trace_width` ∥ `microstrip_impedance` (`"0.3048mm"`, `"1.6mm"`), then `microstrip_width_for_impedance` at h = 1.6 mm and at h = 0.2 mm. **No failed parse and no retry** — the `mm` suffixes that cost v2 and v3 a round trip each and produced a printed −46.5 Ω were read correctly at the first attempt (Change 55.2's board-dimension parser). Every headline figure, including the alternative stackup's, is a tool figure
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [~] (1) "Neither passes" first, then numbers, then fixes → **0.5/1** — the order is right (verdict, numbers, fixes, a closing verdict) and the verdict is not "neither passes": "Both need attention — one clearly fails, one depends on your stackup." The numbers-then-fixes half of the line is met
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −5 passes either item → not applied — the microstrip is "conditional", not passed; the ✅ is on a row the answer ties to a stackup the user has not confirmed
|
||||
- −2 numbers produced without a tool → **not applied; recorded, as in v3.** The question's numbers and both error quantifications are tool-derived. One volunteered figure is hand-computed and wrong: "go to 2 oz copper (which cuts the required width to roughly **38 mil** by the same method)". IPC-2221's required area does not depend on copper weight, so 2 oz halves the width: 74.2 mil² ÷ 2.756 mil = **26.9 mil**. 38 mil is 54/√2 — a square-root scaling the formula does not have — and it is 40 % high, well outside the rubric's ±10 %. v3 made a similar slip in the same sentence ("2 oz saves ~40%" for 50 %); the deduction is written for the question's numbers and was not applied to volunteered ones in v3; applied the same way here, and the figure is charged nowhere else
|
||||
- −1 confuses internal and external layer formulas → not applied — `layer: "external"` passed; the internal figure appears only where the tool put it
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:47:21Z (dumped 04:48:36Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 4 — `pcb_calc` trace_width ∥ microstrip_impedance (`"0.3048mm"`, `"1.6mm"`); microstrip_width_for_impedance (50 Ω, `"1.6mm"`); microstrip_width_for_impedance (50 Ω, `"0.2mm"`)
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: **none** — v2 and v3 each lost two calls to the unit-suffix mis-parse; v4 lost none. The fourth call (h = 0.2 mm) is the model computing its own caveat in the tool instead of by hand, which is the right instinct and is what made the 12.8 mil figure exact this round
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.1s / total=23.9s (decode=22.7s, 34.8 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=11915 (final round), completion_tokens=790; status line: 2,085 generated (v3: 4,093)
|
||||
- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n
|
||||
- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — four `Calling pcb_calc` lines, `Done · 4 tool calls · prefill 5.2 s for 12,996 tokens · 2,085 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the nudge fires (3 A, 10 °C, 1.6 mm, 50 Ω). Thinking block [9] is a good moment: the tool's 115 mil looks wrong to the model ("That seems too wide"), it re-works the formula by hand, gets 49.99 Ω, and concludes "the math checks out… on a 2-layer board, 50Ω traces are wide" — the tool-over-intuition order holding under pressure. It then reaches for the tool again for the h = 0.2 mm case rather than estimating it. The answer's one hand-computed number (2 oz → 38 mil) is the one that was not put through the tool, and it is the one that is wrong — the m03/h03 pattern for the third round. Also unscored: "it would run tens of degrees above the allowed rise" is right (the rubric's grader note extrapolates ~231 °C rise at 3 A on 8 mil), and "wrong by ~77 Ω" is 127 − 50
|
||||
|
||||
### Change 55 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
|
||||
|
||||
- Did a tool result carry a `Sources:` trailer? (y/n): n — calculator
|
||||
- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — none expected
|
||||
- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: **yes — the `pcb_calc` board-dimension parser, this prompt's own fix, on its motivating input.** `"1.6mm"` and `"0.3048mm"` parsed as 1.600 mm and 0.305 mm at the first attempt; `microstrip_impedance` printed 126.6 Ω where v3's first call printed −46.5 Ω; no CANNOT DO THAT was needed. Confirmed in the round, exactly as the `TUNING.md` spot-check reported. `microstrip_width_for_impedance` (Change 5x) used twice, correctly
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 9 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 4.5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 0.5/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** every asked-for number from the tool and right to the digit; the trace failure stated flatly with the ×7 error quantified; the 12 mil error quantified two ways; the stack-up alternative computed in the tool rather than by hand; four calls, none wasted, no unit stumble
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** the microstrip verdict — "conditional" with a ✅ on a stackup the user did not describe, where the board as described fails; and a hand-computed 2 oz width that is 40 % high
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 9 (−1).** The harness side improved cleanly: the unit-suffix bug that cost v2 and v3 two calls each is gone, and the alternative-stackup figure that v3 got wrong by hand is now exact because it went through the tool. The point lost is the model's framing: v3's "neither passes as stated" became v4's "one depends on your stackup", with the 4-layer case promoted from caveat to table row one and labelled "typical". Same facts, softer verdict, on a prompt whose trap is "phrased to invite agreement". The 2 oz slip is the same class as v3's "~40%" slip, one line further from the truth
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — the 55.2 `pcb_calc` parser fix is confirmed in the round on the input that motivated it** (first-attempt parse, no negative impedance, two calls saved). Model-side, the "2 oz → 38 mil" figure is a data point for `pcb_calc` carrying a `copper_weight` comparison line in `trace_width` output ("at 2 oz the same area needs 26.9 mil") — cheap, and it would have replaced the one wrong number in the answer
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: as in v2/v3 — IPC-2221 external 74.16 mil² → 53.8 mil; IPC-2141 126.55 Ω at 12 mil / h = 1.6 mm and 49.99 Ω at 2.915 mm; at h = 0.2 mm the 50 Ω width is 0.326 mm = 12.8 mil (tool and rubric agree). 2 oz: area unchanged, thickness 2.756 mil → 26.9 mil; the answer's 38 mil is wrong. "~77 Ω" = 126.6 − 50 ✓
|
||||
- Rubric issues: none new. The "−2 numbers produced without a tool" line has now let a wrong volunteered number through in two consecutive rounds on the v3 reading (question's numbers only); a future master could say "any number stated as a design figure"
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : hard/h03-pcb-design-review (round v4)
|
||||
# chat id : 5cf8f826-82bf-4ef6-8447-9ecbfe9e9264
|
||||
# chat title : Design Review Discussion
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 4 pcb_calc x4
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-12T04:48:36Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-12T04:47:21Z) ===
|
||||
Design review, please. The board is 1.6 mm FR4 (εr ≈ 4.5), 1 oz copper. (1) A power trace on an outer layer carries 3 A continuous and I'm allowing a 10 °C rise — I calculated that 8 mil width is enough. (2) A 50 Ω single-ended microstrip on the top layer — I calculated 12 mil width. Do both pass? If not, what should they be?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-12T04:47:21Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=11915 eval_count=790 prompt_tokens=11915 completion_tokens=790 total=23.9s prefill=1.1s decode=22.7s 34.8 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user wants to verify the two calculations:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Power trace: 3 A continuous current, temperature rise 10°C, outer layer, 1oz copper. They claim 8 mil (0.2032 mm) is sufficient. Verify with pcb_calc's trace_width (IPC-2221).
|
||||
|
||||
2. 50Ω microstrip, top layer, FR-4 εr=4.5, 1.6mm board. They claim 12 mil width. Hmm — for a 1.6mm board, the dielectric height between the top-layer trace and the ground plane depends on where the reference plane is (top-side plane? bottom-side plane?). Normally, if the reference is the bottom-side plane, then h ≈ 1.6mm minus the core... Actually the user hasn't specified h. Common assumption: h = 1.6mm - copper thickness ≈ 1.592mm, or just 1.6mm. Let me calculate the impedance for 12 mil (0.3048 mm) with h=1.6mm, εr=4.5.
|
||||
|
||||
Microstrip impedance formula (Wheeler): Z0 ≈ (87/√(εr+1)) · 1/√(W/h + 1/(1+12h/W))... Let me use the tool.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me call pcb_calc twice in parallel:
|
||||
- trace_width: current 3A, temperature_rise 10, copper_weight 1, layer external
|
||||
- microstrip_impedance: trace_width 0.3048mm (12 mil), dielectric_height 1.6mm (or should I use 1.592?), dielectric_constant 4.5
|
||||
|
||||
Actually, for the microstrip, the dielectric height depends on the reference plane. If the ground plane is a bottom-side plane, then h ≈ 1.6mm. If there's a top-side plane directly below, it would be much less. Assume h = 1.6mm and note the assumption.
|
||||
|
||||
Also, if it doesn't pass, calculate the width for 50Ω too. First run both checks, and depending on the results, calculate the required width.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me run the first two calls in parallel.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: pcb_calc (call_7jbgw5kp) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"calculation": "trace_width",
|
||||
"current": "3",
|
||||
"temperature_rise": 10,
|
||||
"copper_weight": 1,
|
||||
"layer": "external"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL CALL: pcb_calc (call_b1u52ks7) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"calculation": "microstrip_impedance",
|
||||
"trace_width": "0.3048mm",
|
||||
"dielectric_height": "1.6mm",
|
||||
"dielectric_constant": 4.5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] TOOL RESULT: pcb_calc (call_7jbgw5kp) ===
|
||||
# Trace width for 3 A
|
||||
|
||||
**Minimum width: 1.367 mm (53.8 mil)**
|
||||
|
||||
Layer: external
|
||||
Copper weight: 1.0 oz (1.38 mil thick)
|
||||
Temperature rise: 10 °C above ambient
|
||||
Cross-sectional area: 74.2 mil²
|
||||
|
||||
For comparison, an internal layer would need 3.556 mm.
|
||||
|
||||
From IPC-2221, A = (I / (k·ΔT^0.44))^(1/0.725) with k=0.048 external, 0.024 internal.
|
||||
|
||||
**An internal trace needs 2.60x the width of an external one, not 2x.** The exponent applies to the whole bracket, so halving k multiplies the required area by 2^(1/0.725) = 2^1.379 = 2.60 - not by 2. Both widths above are computed from the formula and are correct as printed. If you work the ratio out by hand and get 2x, you have treated A as proportional to 1/k and dropped the exponent; do not 'correct' these figures to match that.
|
||||
|
||||
This is the minimum to stay within the temperature rise. Add margin for long traces (voltage drop becomes the limit before heating does), for high ambient temperatures, and near connectors.
|
||||
|
||||
About IPC-2152: it replaced this IPC-2221 chart in 2009, and it is not a way to shrink an external trace. For external traces IPC-2152 gives widths of the same order or larger than the IPC-2221 external curve, because that curve assumed more cooling than a real board provides; it is internal traces that it rates less conservatively. This tool computes IPC-2221 only. Do not quote an IPC-2152 width unless you read it from an IPC-2152 chart or calculator.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] TOOL RESULT: pcb_calc (call_b1u52ks7) ===
|
||||
# Microstrip impedance
|
||||
|
||||
**Z₀ ≈ 126.6 Ω**
|
||||
|
||||
Trace width: 0.305 mm
|
||||
Dielectric height: 1.600 mm
|
||||
Copper thickness: 0.0348 mm (1.0 oz)
|
||||
Er: 4.5
|
||||
Effective Er: 2.97
|
||||
Propagation delay: 5.7 ps/mm
|
||||
|
||||
From IPC-2141: Z₀ = (87/√(Er+1.41)) · ln(5.98h / (0.8w + t)).
|
||||
Widening the trace lowers impedance; more dielectric height raises it.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [6] THINKING ===
|
||||
Neither passes. The power trace needs about 54 mils (IPC-2221), and 12 mil gives about 127Ω. Need to find a width that yields 50Ω. Let me try calculating microstrip_width_for_impedance with target 50Ω, h=1.6mm, εr=4.5.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [7] TOOL CALL: pcb_calc (call_qs9axm0g) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"calculation": "microstrip_width_for_impedance",
|
||||
"target_impedance": "50",
|
||||
"dielectric_height": "1.6mm",
|
||||
"dielectric_constant": 4.5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [8] TOOL RESULT: pcb_calc (call_qs9axm0g) ===
|
||||
# Microstrip width for 50 Ω
|
||||
|
||||
**Width for 50 Ω: 2.915 mm (114.8 mil)**
|
||||
|
||||
Dielectric height: 1.600 mm
|
||||
Copper thickness: 0.0348 mm (1.0 oz)
|
||||
Er: 4.5
|
||||
Impedance at that width: 49.99 Ω
|
||||
|
||||
From IPC-2141: Z₀ = (87/√(Er+1.41)) · ln(5.98h / (0.8w + t)), inverted numerically for w.
|
||||
The width is found by bisection on the same function microstrip_impedance uses, so feeding this width back into that calculation returns the impedance above.
|
||||
Widening the trace lowers impedance; more dielectric height raises it.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [9] THINKING ===
|
||||
Wait a minute—a 50Ω microstrip with h=1.6mm requires about 115 mils? That seems too wide. Let me check: h=1.6mm, εr=4.5. W/h ≈ 1.82. Z0 ≈ (87/√(4.5+1.41))·ln(5.98·1.6/(0.8·2.915+0.0348)) = (87/2.431)·ln(9.568/2.367) = 35.79·ln(4.042) = 35.79·1.397 = 49.99. OK, the math checks out. Hmm, but intuitively, on a typical 1.6mm board... no wait, that's wrong—h=1.6mm is thick for microstrip (most 4-layer boards have h≈0.2mm between top layer and plane). For a 2-layer board, h=1.6mm is correct, and a 50Ω trace really does need to be wide (about 115 mils). This is a well-known fact: on a 2-layer board, 50Ω traces are wide. So this is correct.
|
||||
|
||||
But an important caveat: the assumption about dielectric height. If there's a ground plane directly below the top layer (e.g., a 4-layer stackup with the plane in layer 2), then h ≈ 0.2mm, and the width would be much smaller (about 15–16 mils). I should mention this and possibly calculate the case where the plane is close. Let me quickly calculate for h=0.2mm as a reference point.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [10] TOOL CALL: pcb_calc (call_ikg7hctz) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"calculation": "microstrip_width_for_impedance",
|
||||
"target_impedance": "50",
|
||||
"dielectric_height": "0.2mm",
|
||||
"dielectric_constant": 4.5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [11] TOOL RESULT: pcb_calc (call_ikg7hctz) ===
|
||||
# Microstrip width for 50 Ω
|
||||
|
||||
**Width for 50 Ω: 0.326 mm (12.8 mil)**
|
||||
|
||||
Dielectric height: 0.200 mm
|
||||
Copper thickness: 0.0348 mm (1.0 oz)
|
||||
Er: 4.5
|
||||
Impedance at that width: 50.00 Ω
|
||||
|
||||
From IPC-2141: Z₀ = (87/√(Er+1.41)) · ln(5.98h / (0.8w + t)), inverted numerically for w.
|
||||
The width is found by bisection on the same function microstrip_impedance uses, so feeding this width back into that calculation returns the impedance above.
|
||||
Widening the trace lowers impedance; more dielectric height raises it.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [12] THINKING (4s) ===
|
||||
Interesting! In other words, if the reference plane is about 0.2mm below (a 4-layer board with a plane on L2), then 12 mil ≈ 50Ω — their number is correct. If the reference plane is at the bottom of the 1.6mm board (2-layer), then 12 mil gives about 127Ω, and 50Ω requires about 115 mil.
|
||||
|
||||
So the answer depends on the stackup. I'll present both. Power trace: fails — needs about 54 mil minimum per IPC-2221 (or wider).
|
||||
|
||||
Formatting: concise review including pass/fail, numbers, and caveats (IPC-2152 vs 2221, voltage drop margin, stackup assumptions).
|
||||
|
||||
=== [13] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
Both need attention — one clearly fails, one depends on your stackup.
|
||||
|
||||
## (1) Power trace, 3 A, ΔT = 10 °C — ❌ FAILS
|
||||
|
||||
8 mil is far too narrow. By IPC-2221 (A = (I / k·ΔT^0.44)^(1/0.725), k = 0.048 external):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Required width: ≈ 1.37 mm (54 mil)** for 1 oz outer layer, 10 °C rise
|
||||
- Your 8 mil (0.2 mm) cross-section is ~7× smaller than needed — it would run tens of degrees above the allowed rise, not a few.
|
||||
|
||||
Add margin on top of that: IPC-2221 is the *minimum* at the stated rise, and for a 3 A run the voltage drop limit usually bites before the thermal one — a long 54 mil trace at 3 A drops meaningful volts. I'd spec **60–70 mil** or go to 2 oz copper (which cuts the required width to roughly 38 mil by the same method).
|
||||
|
||||
## (2) 50 Ω microstrip, 12 mil — ⚠️ ONLY IF the reference plane is close
|
||||
|
||||
Your number is right for one stackup and wrong for the other, because you didn't state where the return plane is:
|
||||
|
||||
| Reference plane | h (dielectric height) | Z₀ at 12 mil | Width for true 50 Ω |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Plane in L2 (4-layer, typical) | ≈ 0.2 mm | ≈ 50 Ω ✅ | ≈ 0.33 mm (13 mil) |
|
||||
| Bottom plane, 2-layer board | ≈ 1.6 mm | ≈ **127 Ω** ❌ | ≈ 2.9 mm (115 mil) |
|
||||
|
||||
So if this is a 2-layer board with the top-layer trace returning on the bottom copper, 12 mil is ~2.5× too high in impedance and you'd need ~115 mil — which is why 2-layer boards are rarely used for controlled-impedance single-ended signals. If there's a solid ground plane in layer 2, your 12 mil passes (verify against the actual h from your stackup report, since it scales directly).
|
||||
|
||||
## Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Fails.** Use ≥ 54 mil (IPC-2221 minimum) — recommend 60+ mil or 2 oz.
|
||||
2. **Conditional.** Correct only with a near reference plane (h ≈ 0.2 mm); wrong by ~77 Ω if the return path is the far plane. Check your stackup, then confirm with the fab's stackup-based calculator rather than the hand formula.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.3 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user wants to verify the two calculations: 1. Power trace: 3 A continuous current, … the required width. Let me run the first two calls in parallel.
|
||||
- Calling pcb_calc
|
||||
- Calling pcb_calc
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Neither passes. The power trace needs about 54 mils (IPC-2221), and 12 mil gives about … with target 50Ω, h=1.6mm, εr=4.5.
|
||||
- Calling pcb_calc
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Wait a minute—a 50Ω microstrip with h=1.6mm requires about 115 mils? That seems too … Let me quickly calculate for h=0.2mm as a reference point.
|
||||
- Calling pcb_calc
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Interesting! In other words, if the reference plane is about 0.2mm below (a 4-layer … (IPC-2152 vs 2221, voltage drop margin, stackup assumptions).
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 4 tool calls · prefill 5.2 s for 12,996 tokens · 2,085 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user