Grant/owui-tools
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial Commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Grant
2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/prompt.txt
+1
View File
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: "B is a knave." B says: "A and C are the same type." C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/rubric.md
+54
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# m07 — Knights and knaves
| | |
|---|---|
| **Difficulty** | medium |
| **Domain** | logic |
| **Probes** | case analysis; recognising a determined conclusion inside an underdetermined system |
| **Tools expected** | none needed; a `matlab_run` brute force over the 8 assignments is a good sign |
| **Trap** | Answering "cannot be determined" for C because A and B are not determined. Or assigning definite types to A and B. |
## Ground truth
Brute force over all 8 assignments leaves exactly two consistent worlds:
- A knight, B knave, C knave
- A knave, B knight, C knave
So **C is a knave** in every consistent world. **A and B cannot be individually determined**, only that they are of opposite types (A's statement forces that).
> **Verified at grading time (2026-09-11).** Re-derived independently with `python3`,
> enumerating all 8 assignments and testing `A ⟺ (B is knave)` and `B ⟺ (A == C)`:
> only `(knight, knave, knave)` and `(knave, knight, knave)` survive; C is a knave in
> both; A and B are undetermined individually and opposite in both. The rubric's ground
> truth is correct as written — no correction needed.
## Scoring (10 points)
### Correctness (5)
- [ ] (3) C is a knave
- [ ] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [ ] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force)
### Tool use (2)
- [ ] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine
### Communication (1)
- [ ] (1) Answer first, then the two cases
### Automatic deductions
- −3 "C cannot be determined"
- −2 assigns definite types to A and B
- −1 invents a statement C never made
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide)
- automatic fail (set-wide)
## Grading
One worksheet per round, alongside that round's transcript:
- `v1/grade.md` · `v1/result.txt` — first round (baseline)
- `v2/grade.md` · `v2/result.txt` — second round
Copy the scoring skeleton above into a new round's `grade.md` to add one.
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v1/grade.md
+52
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
# m07 — Knights and knaves · round v1
> Grading worksheet for round **v1**. 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] (3) C is a knave → 3/3 — opening line states "**C is a knave**", and both branches land on it explicitly.
- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types → 2/2 — "no — you cannot determine A and B individually; you can only say they are opposite types", restated as "one is a knight and the other a knave … the statements never pin down which is which".
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [x] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force) → 2/2 — Case 1 (A knight) and Case 2 (A knave) are each derived step by step and each marked "✓ Consistent"; the two cases are exactly the two surviving worlds from the brute force. Nothing fabricated, no invented statement for C.
### Tool use (2)
- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine → 2/2 — 0 tool calls, and the rubric explicitly allows a clean no-tool two-case proof. The case split on A is exhaustive and the derivation in each branch is valid, so it covers the full 8-assignment space without enumerating it.
### Communication (1)
- [x] (1) Answer first, then the two cases → 1/1 — bolded answer to both questions in the first sentence, then "Here's why, by cases on A", then the two cases and a one-paragraph gloss on why the symmetry is unbreakable. No preamble, no padding.
### Automatic deductions
- −3 "C cannot be determined" → not applied — the model says the opposite: C is determined and only A/B are not.
- −2 assigns definite types to A and B → not applied — explicitly refuses to, twice.
- −1 invents a statement C never made → not applied — correctly treats C's silence as "no third statement to break the symmetry".
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied — the turn ends with the finished answer; no stated intent to look anything up.
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied — no pasted-data instruction to follow, no study/number presented as looked-up.
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T05:02:06Z (user turn); dumped 2026-09-11T05:02:43Z
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): none — header reads `tool calls : 0 (none)`
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none (no calls at all; correct for this prompt)
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=5.0s, decode=10.3s, total=17.6s; prompt_tokens=13571, completion_tokens=486, 47.1 tok/s. Note the ~13.5k-token prefill on a 233-character question — that is the fixed system-prompt + tool-schema preamble, and it is the dominant cost on a prompt that needs no tools (prefill 5.0s + decode 10.3s = 15.3s, leaving ~2.3s of harness overhead inside the 17.6s total).
- 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 (with one cosmetic timing mismatch) — `Processing prompt → Thinking → Thought: <preview> → Writing response → Done` tracks the real sequence (one thinking block, then answer text), and `Done` correctly carries no "· N tool calls" suffix because there were none. The one discrepancy: the indicator says "prompt processed in 7.4 s" while the `usage:` line reports `prefill=5.0s`, so the two prefill numbers shown to the user disagree by ~2.4s (the indicator is wall-clock to first token including queue/HTTP; `prefill=` is Ollama's `prompt_eval_duration`).
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing odd. No loops, no truncation, no tool errors. The quantitative-question nudge did **not** fire: verified by running `_MEASUREMENT` from `owui-functions/quantitative_question_nudge.py` against `prompt.txt` — no match (the only quantity is the word "three", and bare/worded numbers without units are excluded by design). So this answer is unassisted by the inlet. The thinking block and the final answer agree completely; nothing correct appears only in thinking.
## Result (fill in)
- **Score:** 10 / 10
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
- **Verdict:** pass (8–10)
- **What it got right:** Everything the rubric asks for, and it walked straight past both traps. It answered both questions in the first line ("C is a knave" / "you cannot determine A and B individually"), then gave an exhaustive case split on A with a valid derivation in each branch, each marked consistent. Case 1 reproduces the world (A knight, B knave, C knave) and Case 2 reproduces (A knave, B knight, C knave) — exactly the two worlds my `python3` enumeration of all 8 assignments leaves standing. It correctly separated "determined" from "individually determined": C is pinned even though A and B are not, and A and B are pinned *relative to each other* as opposites. It also explained *why* the system is under-determined (C's silence leaves no third statement to break the symmetry) rather than just asserting it. No tool was needed and none was called, which the rubric explicitly rates as fine; nothing was fabricated and C was never given a statement.
- **What it got wrong:** Nothing material. The only thing separating this from a brute-force-backed answer is that the exhaustiveness of the case split on A is left implicit — the model never says "these two are the only consistent assignments out of 8" — but a two-valued split on A with a forced derivation in each branch *is* exhaustive, so the rubric's "clean two-case proof" criterion is met on its own terms and no points are withheld.
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): Yes, two small harness notes (neither cost the model anything): (1) the live status indicator's "prompt processed in 7.4 s" disagrees with the transcript's `prefill=5.0s` for the same turn — two different prefill numbers shown for one request, worth making consistent or labelling differently; (2) a 233-character tool-free logic puzzle still carries a 13,571-token prefill of system prompt + tool schemas, ~5s of the 17.6s turn, which is the standing cost of the tool preamble on every non-tool prompt in the suite.
## Grader notes
- Ground truth verification: Reproduced with `python3` in Bash on 2026-09-11 — enumerated all 8 knight/knave assignments over (A,B,C) and evaluated A's statement as `¬B` and B's statement as `A == C`, keeping worlds where each speaker's type matches the truth value of their own statement (C unconstrained, as C speaks). Exactly two worlds survive: (knight, knave, knave) and (knave, knight, knave). C is a knave in both; neither A nor B is constant across the two; A ≠ B in both. This matches the rubric's ground truth exactly, so no correction was needed. The nudge question was settled by executing the filter's own `_MEASUREMENT` regex against `prompt.txt` (no match) rather than by eye. No web lookup was required — the puzzle is self-contained.
- Rubric issues: None substantive. One judgment call: the Tool-use line offers "a clean two-case proof with no tool" as a full-credit alternative to a `matlab_run` enumeration, and I read "clean" as *logically exhaustive and correctly derived* rather than *explicitly enumerating all 8 assignments*. Under that reading the two-case split on A earns the full 2/2; under the stricter reading the model would lose a point for never stating that the two consistent worlds are the only ones out of 8. I used the former, since the rubric's own "Tools expected" row says "none needed" and calls the brute force merely "a good sign", not a requirement.
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v1/result.txt
+56
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
########################################################################
# owuitools prompt test result
# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves
# chat id : bb132f46-3ddc-4c1a-a6db-3b10b4c7bce7
# chat title : C's Identity and Relationship
# user : the operator
# model : qwen3.8:latest
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
# tool calls : 0 (none)
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T05:02:43Z
########################################################################
=== USER (2026-09-11T05:02:06Z) ===
On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: “B is a knave.” B says: “A and C are the same type.” C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T05:02:06Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
usage: prompt_eval_count=13571 eval_count=486 prompt_tokens=13571 completion_tokens=486 total=17.6s prefill=5.0s decode=10.3s 47.1 tok/s
=== [1] THINKING (4s) ===
This is a classic knights and knaves puzzle. Let me think through it.
A says "B is a knave."
B says "A and C are the same type."
C says nothing.
Case 1: A is a knight. Then B is a knave (A's statement true). B is a knave, so B's statement "A and C are the same type" is a lie. So A and C are NOT the same type. A is knight, so C is a knave.
Case 2: A is a knave. Then A's statement is a lie, so B is a knight. B is a knight, so "A and C are the same type" is true. A is knave, so C is a knave.
In both cases, C is a knave. And A and B are opposite types, but we can't determine which is which.
So: C is a knave, and A and B are opposite — one knight, one knave — but we cannot determine which is which.
=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
**C is a knave. And no — you cannot determine A and B individually; you can only say they are opposite types.**
Here's why, by cases on A:
**Case 1: A is a knight.**
Then A's statement is true → B is a knave.
B is a knave, so B's statement "A and C are the same type" is false → A and C are *different* types.
A is a knight, so **C is a knave**. ✓ Consistent.
**Case 2: A is a knave.**
Then A's statement is false → B is a knight.
B is a knight, so "A and C are the same type" is true → C is the same type as A.
A is a knave, so **C is a knave**. ✓ Consistent.
In **both** cases C comes out a knave, so that's determined. But A and B flip between the two cases — one is a knight and the other a knave, yet the statements never pin down which is which. C saying nothing is exactly what makes the puzzle under-determined for A and B: there's no third statement to break the symmetry.
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
- Processing prompt
- Thinking · prompt processed in 7.4 s
- Thought: This is a classic knights and knaves puzzle. Let me think through it. A says "B is a knave." B says "A and C are the same type." C says nothing. Case 1: A is a…
- Writing response
- Done
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v2/grade.md
+54
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# m07 — Knights and knaves · round v2
> Grading worksheet for round **v2**. 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] (3) C is a knave → 3/3 — "**C is a knave.**", first words of the answer, and shown as the forced value in both rows of the case table
- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types → 2/2 — "no — you can't pin down A and B individually, only that they're opposite types". Both halves of the distinction are stated: undetermined individually, determined relative to each other
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [x] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force) → 2/2 — it does **both**. A two-row table naming the type of each islander in each world, a written derivation for each case marked "✓ Consistent", and behind them an actual brute-force enumeration of all eight assignments in Octave whose output (`0 1 0` / `1 0 0`) is the two surviving worlds. The answer's claim "I enumerated all eight assignments" is true
### Tool use (2)
- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine → 2/2 — a `matlab_run` enumeration, `purpose: "scratch"`, nine lines, correct encoding of both statements (`A == (B==0)` and `B == (A==C)`)
### Communication (1)
- [x] (1) Answer first, then the two cases → 1/1 — both answers in the first line, then the table, then the two derivations, then one sentence on why the symmetry is unbreakable
### Automatic deductions
- −3 "C cannot be determined" → not applied — C is determined and said so first
- −2 assigns definite types to A and B → not applied — explicitly refuses to
- −1 invents a statement C never made → not applied — C's silence is used correctly, as the reason the system stays underdetermined
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied — "let me just quickly enumerate in MATLAB" is followed immediately by the call
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T20:00:51Z (dumped 20:01:39Z)
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `matlab_run` x1 (`purpose: "scratch"`)
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.3s / total=10.1s (decode=7.7s, 39.3 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9917, completion_tokens=303
- 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 — `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,716 tokens · 800 generated`. v1's grade raised the "prompt processed in 7.4 s" vs `prefill=5.0s` mismatch on this prompt; Change 52 resolved it
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no, and the interesting part is a decision rather than a fault. Thinking block [1] solves the puzzle correctly by hand, then deliberates about whether a tool is warranted — "This is pure logic — no tools needed… The instructions say to use tools for arithmetic, but… this is logic and it's trivial… Let me do a quick check with matlab_run scratch to be rigorous" — and calls it anyway. The rubric names a brute-force enumeration as "a good sign"; this is the model choosing to be checkable on a prompt where it was already right, at a cost of 0.43 s. It is the same instinct that saved e11, applied here where it was not needed. Total turn time went **down** against v1 (10.1 s vs 17.6 s) despite adding the call, and completion tokens fell 486 → 303, because the enumeration replaced prose deliberation. The quantitative nudge does not fire
## Result (fill in)
- **Score:** 10 / 10
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
- **Verdict:** pass
- **What it got right:** both traps, and then some. It answered both questions in the first line, kept "determined" and "individually determined" properly apart, and explained *why* the system is underdetermined rather than just asserting it — C's silence leaves no third statement to break the A/B symmetry. The two case derivations are valid and each is checked for consistency. And it backed the case analysis with an executed enumeration of all eight assignments whose output matches an independent check exactly
- **What it got wrong:** nothing
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0)** on score, with the one gap v1's grade identified now closed. v1 reached the right answer by a two-valued case split on A and its grade noted that "the exhaustiveness of the case split is left implicit — the model never says 'these two are the only consistent assignments out of 8'". v2 says exactly that, and has the enumeration to back it. The answer is also 38% shorter (303 vs 486 completion tokens) and the turn is faster despite the extra tool call. This is the third prompt in the round — with e11 and e18 — where the model added a cheap `matlab_run` check to a problem it had already solved correctly in its head, and in each case the check either caught something or made the claim auditable
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no weakness. Worth one line of positive evidence in the round summary: this is the cleanest instance of the Change-50/51 scratchpad framing being applied *outside* arithmetic. The system prompt's "Doing the arithmetic" section names counting, compounding and unit conversion; the model generalised it to exhaustive enumeration over a logic puzzle, weighed the cost explicitly, and spent it. v1's two standing observations are both addressed or moot: the status-indicator prefill label is fixed (Change 52), and the fixed per-chat prefill cost of the tool preamble is down about 850 tokens after Change 53
## Grader notes
- Ground truth verification: re-derived independently with python3 on 2026-09-11, enumerating all eight assignments and testing `A ⟺ (B is knave)` and `B ⟺ (A == C)`. Exactly two survive — `(A knave, B knight, C knave)` and `(A knight, B knave, C knave)` — C is a knave in both, A and B are opposite in both and individually undetermined. This matches the rubric's own verified ground truth and matches the model's Octave output row for row (`0 1 0` and `1 0 0` with 1 = knight). The rubric needs no correction
- Rubric issues: none
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v2/result.txt
+76
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
########################################################################
# owuitools prompt test result
# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves (round v2)
# chat id : 313c3714-1fa9-4c42-890e-9046c7c0999e
# chat title : C's Identity and Truth
# user : the operator
# model : qwen3.8:latest
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
# tool calls : 1 matlab_run x1
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T20:01:39Z
########################################################################
=== USER (2026-09-11T20:00:51Z) ===
On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: “B is a knave.” B says: “A and C are the same type.” C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T20:00:51Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
usage: prompt_eval_count=9917 eval_count=303 prompt_tokens=9917 completion_tokens=303 total=10.1s prefill=2.3s decode=7.7s 39.3 tok/s
=== [1] THINKING ===
Let me try to solve this logic puzzle.
A: "B is a knave." B: "A and C are the same type."
Case 1: A is a knight → B is a knave (truthful). B is a knave → his statement "A and C are the same type" is a lie → A and C are of different types → C is a knave. Consistent: A is a knight, B is a knave, C is a knave.
Case 2: A is a knave → B is a knight (A's lie). B is a knight → A and C are the same type → C is a knave. Consistent: A is a knave, B is a knight, C is a knave.
In both cases C is a knave. A and B: one is a knight and the other is a knave, but which is which cannot be determined. So C = knave, and A and B are opposite types but it's indeterminate.
This is pure logic — no tools needed. I could verify with matlab_run scratch, but it's simple enough that it can be enumerated by hand. The instructions say to use tools for arithmetic, but... this is logic and it's trivial. I could also verify with a quick script. Let me do a quick check with matlab_run scratch to be rigorous.
Actually, let me just quickly enumerate in MATLAB.
=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_fyxp75o7) ===
{
"code": "% Enumerate all 8 assignments; K=1, Knave=0\nsolutions = [];\nfor A = 0:1\n for B = 0:1\n for C = 0:1\n % A says \"B is a knave\": true iff B==0\n if A == (B==0)\n % B says \"A and C are the same type\": true iff A==C\n if B == (A==C)\n solutions = [solutions; A B C];\n end\n end\n end\n end\nend\ndisp(solutions);\nfprintf('Rows: A B C (1=knight, 0=knave)\\n');",
"purpose": "scratch"
}
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_fyxp75o7) ===
# Scratch run OK (0.43s)
## Output
```
0 1 0
1 0 0
Rows: A B C (1=knight, 0=knave)
```
=== [4] THINKING (1s) ===
Confirmed: two consistent worlds exist — (A knight, B knave, C knave), or (A knave, B knight, C knave). C is always a knave.
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
**C is a knave.** And no — you can't pin down A and B individually, only that they're opposite types.
Here's why. There are exactly two consistent worlds (I enumerated all eight assignments):
| Case | A | B | C |
|------|---|---|---|
| 1 | Knight | Knave | **Knave** |
| 2 | Knave | Knight | **Knave** |
**Case 1:** Suppose A is a knight. Then his statement is true, so B is a knave. B's statement ("A and C are the same type") must then be false, so C is *not* the same type as A — C is a knave. ✓ Consistent.
**Case 2:** Suppose A is a knave. Then his statement is false, so B is a knight. B's statement is therefore true, so C has A's type — C is a knave. ✓ Also consistent.
Both cases survive, and in both C turns out to be a knave. That's the punchline: C says nothing, yet his type is forced — while A and B's statement about each other creates a perfect symmetry that the puzzle never breaks.
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
- Processing prompt
- Thinking · first token after 6.0 s
- Thought: Let me try to solve this logic puzzle. A: "B is a knave." B: "A and C are the same … be rigorous. Actually, let me just quickly enumerate in MATLAB.
- Calling matlab_run
- Thinking
- Thought: Confirmed: two consistent worlds exist — (A knight, B knave, C knave), or (A knave, B knight, C knave). C is always a knave.
- Writing response
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,716 tokens · 800 generated
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v3/grade.md
+62
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
# m07 — Knights and knaves · round v3
> Grading worksheet for round **v3**. 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] (3) C is a knave → 3/3 — "**C is definitely a knave — and that's the only thing you can determine.**", first words
- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types → 2/2 — "A and B must be *opposite* types, but the information given doesn't tell you which is which"; restated at the end as "determined only up to their opposition"
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [x] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force) → 2/2 — both: two written case derivations each marked consistent, a two-row table of the surviving worlds, and an executed enumeration of all eight assignments whose output is exactly those two rows
### Tool use (2)
- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine → 2/2 — the proof was complete in thinking before any call; the enumeration was added "as a sanity check". Two calls: the first failed on a script-local function, the second supplied it via `helper_files` and succeeded
### Communication (1)
- [x] (1) Answer first, then the two cases → 1/1 — both answers in the first line, then the cases, then the table, then one closing sentence
### Automatic deductions
- −3 "C cannot be determined" → not applied
- −2 assigns definite types to A and B → not applied — explicitly refuses to
- −1 invents a statement C never made → not applied
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied — "Let me do it as a sanity check" is followed by the call
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:31:56Z (dumped 23:32:56Z)
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 2 — `matlab_run` (scratch, failed: `'tern' undefined`), `matlab_run` (scratch, `tern.m` in `helper_files`, OK)
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: one failed call, recovered on the next. The cause is an Octave-versus-MATLAB difference, not a model slip: MATLAB (R2016b+) allows a local function at the **end** of a script; Octave requires a function defined in a script to appear **before** its first use. The model's code was valid MATLAB. The tool's hint ("Either it is a typo, or it is a function you meant to supply - if it is yours, pass it in helper_files") got it to a working call but did not name the actual difference, and the model's own diagnosis ("In Octave, functions within a script need to be placed in a separate file") is a plausible but inexact reading of it
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.1s / total=8.6s (decode=7.4s, 40.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10432, completion_tokens=297; status line: 1,222 generated
- 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 — `Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 6.0 s for 12,716 tokens · 1,222 generated`
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing else. Nudge does not fire. The enumeration encodes both statements correctly (`A == (B == 0)`, `B == (A == C)`) and its output matches the independent check in the rubric
### Change 54 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
- Did a tool result end with a `Sources:` line? (y/n): n — calculator
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none expected
- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): n/a
- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: n/a
- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a
## Result (fill in)
- **Score:** 10 / 10
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
- **Verdict:** pass
- **What it got right:** both traps; a valid two-case proof; an executed enumeration to back it; the answer first
- **What it got wrong:** nothing scored. One wasted call on a sandbox difference
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Same reasoning, same enumeration, same answer shape. The one difference is the failed first call: v2's script used no local function and ran first time; v3's did, and hit Octave's ordering rule. Same score, one call heavier
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): a small tool-output item. `matlab_run`'s undefined-function hint could name the one MATLAB/Octave difference that produces this exact error on valid MATLAB — a script-local function placed after its use — since `purpose: "scratch"` already switches the hint into Octave-equivalence mode for library names. One line ("In Octave a function defined inside a script must come before the code that calls it; MATLAB lets it come last") would have made the first call succeed on retry without `helper_files`
## Grader notes
- Ground truth verification: rubric carries its own verified enumeration; the model's Octave output (`A=knave, B=knight, C=knave` / `A=knight, B=knave, C=knave`) matches it row for row
- Rubric issues: none
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v3/result.txt
+109
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
########################################################################
# owuitools prompt test result
# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves (round v3)
# chat id : 20b40619-f53f-4d14-8df8-41a73b604ef9
# chat title : Island Islanders
# user : the operator
# model : qwen3.8:latest
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
# tool calls : 2 matlab_run x2
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:32:56Z
########################################################################
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:31:56Z) ===
On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: "B is a knave." B says: "A and C are the same type." C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T23:31:56Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
usage: prompt_eval_count=10432 eval_count=297 prompt_tokens=10432 completion_tokens=297 total=8.6s prefill=1.1s decode=7.4s 40.2 tok/s
=== [1] THINKING ===
This is a classic puzzle. Let me reason through it.
A's statement: "B is a knave (liar)."
B's statement: "A and C are the same kind."
Case analysis:
Suppose A is a knight. Then B is a knave. B's statement is a lie: A and C are not the same kind. A is a knight, so C is a knave. Consistent: A=knight, B=knave, C=knave. Check B's statement: "A and C are the same kind" — A is a knight, C is a knave, different kinds → false, and B is a knave ✓.
Suppose A is a knave. Then A's statement is a lie: B is a knight. B tells the truth: A and C are the same kind. A is a knave, so C is a knave. Consistent: A=knave, B=knight, C=knave. Check B: A is a knave, C is a knave, same kind → true, and B is a knight ✓.
So in both cases C is a knave. A and B are opposite kinds, but we can't determine which one is which.
Answer: C is definitely a knave. A and B are of opposite kinds (one knight, one knave), but we can't tell which is which.
No tools needed — this is pure logic. But should I verify with matlab_run? This is a logic puzzle, and I could quickly enumerate all 8 assignments in MATLAB and check consistency. That would be a nice verification. Let me do it as a sanity check.
=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_asi0b6ji) ===
{
"purpose": "scratch",
"code": "% Enumerate all 8 assignments; 1 = knight (truth-teller), 0 = knave (liar)\nfor A = 0:1\n for B = 0:1\n for C = 0:1\n % A says \"B is a knave\": statement truth-value is (B==0)\n okA = (A == (B == 0));\n % B says \"A and C are the same type\": truth-value is (A==C)\n okB = (B == (A == C));\n if okA && okB\n fprintf('Consistent: A=%s, B=%s, C=%s\\n', ...\n tern(A,'knight','knave'), tern(B,'knight','knave'), tern(C,'knight','knave'));\n end\n end\n end\nend\nfunction s = tern(v,kn,kv)\n if v, s = kn; else, s = kv; end\nend\n"
}
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_asi0b6ji) ===
# Scratch run FAILED
## Error
'tern' undefined near line 11, column 11
at main.m line 10
(identifier: Octave:undefined-function)
`tern` is not defined. Either it is a typo, or it is a function you meant to supply - if it is yours, pass it in helper_files as `tern.m`.
=== [4] THINKING ===
In Octave, functions within a script need to be placed in a separate file. I'll use helper_files.
=== [5] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_8vp1rexc) ===
{
"purpose": "scratch",
"code": "% Enumerate all 8 assignments; 1 = knight (truth-teller), 0 = knave (liar)\nfor A = 0:1\n for B = 0:1\n for C = 0:1\n % A says \"B is a knave\": statement truth-value is (B==0)\n okA = (A == (B == 0));\n % B says \"A and C are the same type\": truth-value is (A==C)\n okB = (B == (A == C));\n if okA && okB\n fprintf('Consistent: A=%s, B=%s, C=%s\\n', ...\n tern(A,'knight','knave'), tern(B,'knight','knave'), tern(C,'knight','knave'));\n end\n end\n end\nend\n",
"helper_files": [
{
"code": "function s = tern(v,kn,kv)\n if v, s = kn; else, s = kv; end\nend",
"name": "tern.m"
}
]
}
=== [6] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_8vp1rexc) ===
# Scratch run OK (0.45s)
## Output
```
Consistent: A=knave, B=knight, C=knave
Consistent: A=knight, B=knave, C=knave
```
=== [7] THINKING (0s) ===
Confirmed. Answer: C is definitely a liar (knave). A and B are of opposite kinds, but they can't be distinguished.
=== [8] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
**C is definitely a knave — and that's the only thing you can determine.** A and B must be *opposite* types, but the information given doesn't tell you which is which.
Here's the reasoning, verified by enumerating all eight possible assignments:
**Case 1: A is a knight.** Then his statement is true, so B is a knave. Since B lies, "A and C are the same type" is false — A and C differ. A is a knight, so **C is a knave**. ✓ Consistent.
**Case 2: A is a knave.** Then his statement is false, so B is a knight. Since B tells the truth, A and C are the same type — both knaves. So **C is a knave** again. ✓ Consistent.
Both consistent worlds agree on C but disagree on A and B:
| A | B | C |
|---|---|---|
| Knight | Knave | Knave |
| Knave | Knight | Knave |
So the puzzle is fully solvable for C (knave), while A and B are determined only up to their opposition — one knight, one knave, indistinguishable from what they said.
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
- Processing prompt
- Thinking · first token after 10.2 s
- Thought: This is a classic puzzle. Let me reason through it. A's statement: "B is a knave … would be a nice verification. Let me do it as a sanity check.
- Calling matlab_run
- Thinking
- Thought: In Octave, functions within a script need to be placed in a separate file. I'll use helper_files.
- Calling matlab_run
- Thinking
- Thought: Confirmed. Answer: C is definitely a liar (knave). A and B are of opposite kinds, but they can't be distinguished.
- Writing response
- Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 6.0 s for 12,716 tokens · 1,222 generated
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v4/grade.md
+60
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
# m07 — Knights and knaves · 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] (3) C is a knave → 3/3 — "**C is a knave.** Both surviving cases (4 and 6) agree on this, so C's type is determined"
- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types → 2/2 — "**A and B are always opposite types**, but you cannot tell which is which from the statements alone"
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [~] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force) → **1.5/2** — a full eight-row truth table, with rows 4 and 6 marked as the survivors and both restated in the result. Half charged for a wrong entry in the shown work: row 3 (A knight, B knave, C knight) gives as its reason "✗ A≠C, but B (knave) must lie → contradiction". A and C are both knights in that row, so A = C; B's statement is *true*, and the contradiction is that a knave told the truth. The row's verdict (No) is right; the stated reason asserts the opposite of the row's own assignment and, taken at face value, would make the row consistent. The thinking had it right ("A is knight, C is knight → they ARE the same type"); the table garbled it. A reader checking the proof row by row would stop here
### Tool use (2)
- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine → 2/2 — the eight-case enumeration is worked in full in thinking and reproduced as the table; no tool, which the rubric allows in so many words. Thinking: "This is a pure logic puzzle, no tools needed"
### Communication (1)
- [ ] (1) Answer first, then the two cases → **0/1** — the answer is last. The reply opens with a heading, "Let's work through all eight possible assignments…", the eight-row table, and only then "### Result — C is a knave". v1–v3 all led with the answer
### Automatic deductions
- −3 "C cannot be determined" → not applied
- −2 assigns definite types to A and B → not applied — explicitly refuses to
- −1 invents a statement C never made → not applied
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:35:32Z (dumped 04:36:20Z)
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 0 (none)
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none — none made. v3's failed `matlab_run` (a script-local function defined after its use, which Octave rejects) has no counterpart because no script was run
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=5.0s / total=34.8s (decode=28.0s, 47.6 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=12800, completion_tokens=1332
- 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 — `Done · prefill 5.0 s for 12,800 tokens · 1,332 generated`
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing. Nudge does not fire. The thinking's eight cases are all correctly reasoned; the error is introduced when the table is written. 1,332 tokens for a table plus two bullets is the longest answer of the four rounds on this prompt
### 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/a — no tool
- 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?: **the `matlab_run` function-order hint — this prompt's own fix (v3's failed call) — was not exercised**, because no `matlab_run` was made. Fifth 55.2 fix in the round whose motivating prompt did not reach the tool it was written for
## Result (fill in)
- **Score:** 8.5 / 10
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1.5/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −0
- **Verdict:** pass
- **What it got right:** both traps; a complete eight-case enumeration; the two surviving worlds identified and the conclusion drawn correctly from them
- **What it got wrong:** the answer comes after the table instead of before it; and one row of the table gives a reason that contradicts its own assignment
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 8.5 (−1.5).** Same conclusion, same two surviving cases, same refusal to pin A and B. The two losses are presentation: v3 led with "C is definitely a knave" and v4 leads with "Let's work through…"; and v3's cases were written out in prose (correctly) and checked by an executed enumeration, while v4's are in a table with one wrong cell and no execution. The tool that would have caught the cell was not called, on the same "no tools needed" judgement seen across the round
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no harness item. The answer-last structure and the table slip are model-side; the 55.2 function-order hint remains confirmed only by smoke tests
## Grader notes
- Ground truth verification: rubric carries its own verified enumeration; the table's survivors (rows 4 and 6) match it. Row 3 re-derived: A = K, B = N, C = K → A and C the same type → B's statement true → B (knave) told the truth → inconsistent. The table's "A≠C" is wrong; its "No" is right
- Rubric issues: none. The communication line did what it is for
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v4/result.txt
+98
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
########################################################################
# owuitools prompt test result
# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves (round v4)
# chat id : 80703b35-1abc-4c09-a87e-e0061b9b8d51
# chat title : C's Identity and the Truth
# user : the operator
# model : qwen3.8:latest
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
# tool calls : 0 (none)
# dumped at : 2026-09-12T04:36:20Z
########################################################################
=== USER (2026-09-12T04:35:32Z) ===
On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: "B is a knave." B says: "A and C are the same type." C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-12T04:35:32Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
usage: prompt_eval_count=12800 eval_count=1332 prompt_tokens=12800 completion_tokens=1332 total=34.8s prefill=5.0s decode=28.0s 47.6 tok/s
=== [1] THINKING (17s) ===
Let me think carefully about this logic puzzle.
Knights always tell the truth, knaves always lie.
A says: "B is a knave."
B says: "A and C are the same type."
C says nothing.
Let me enumerate the possibilities. A and B each have two types, and C has two types. So 8 total combinations. Let's check which are consistent.
Case 1: A is a knight, B is a knight, C is a knight.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → but B is a knight. Contradiction. ✗
Case 2: A is a knight, B is a knight, C is a knave.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → but B is a knight. Contradiction. ✗
Case 3: A is a knight, B is a knave, C is a knight.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. ✓
- B (knave) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knight, C is knight → they ARE the same type. But B is a knave, so B must lie. Contradiction. ✗
Case 4: A is a knight, B is a knave, C is a knave.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. ✓
- B (knave) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knight, C is knave → they are NOT the same type. B lies, which is correct for a knave. ✓
This works! ✓
Case 5: A is a knave, B is a knight, C is a knight.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is a knight. A lies, which is correct for a knave. ✓
- B (knight) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knave, C is knight → they are NOT the same type. But B is a knight and must tell the truth. Contradiction. ✗
Case 6: A is a knave, B is a knight, C is a knave.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is a knight. A lies. ✓
- B (knight) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knave, C is knave → they ARE the same type. B tells the truth. ✓
This works! ✓
Case 7: A is a knave, B is a knave, C is a knight.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. But A is a knave and must lie. Contradiction. ✗
Case 8: A is a knave, B is a knave, C is a knave.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. But A is a knave and must lie. Contradiction. ✗
So the valid cases are:
- Case 4: A = knight, B = knave, C = knave
- Case 6: A = knave, B = knight, C = knave
In both cases, C is a **knave**.
But A and B can't be uniquely determined — either A is a knight and B a knave, or A is a knave and B a knight. They are always opposite types of each other.
Wait, let me double-check. In both valid cases, A and B are opposite types. So we can determine that A and B are different types from each other, but we can't determine which one is which. And C is definitely a knave.
This is a pure logic puzzle, no tools needed. I can just answer directly.
=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
## Solving the islander puzzle
Let's work through all eight possible assignments of knight/knave to A, B, and C, keeping only the ones where every statement is consistent with the speaker's type.
| # | A | B | C | A's claim "B is a knave" | B's claim "A & C same type" | Consistent? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | K | K | K | ✗ (B is a knight) | — | **No** |
| 2 | K | K | N | ✗ (B is a knight) | — | **No** |
| 3 | K | N | K | ✓ | ✗ A≠C, but B (knave) must lie → contradiction | **No** |
| 4 | **K** | **N** | **N** | ✓ B is a knave | A=K, C=N → different; B (knave) lies ✓ | **Yes** |
| 5 | N | K | K | ✓ A lies correctly | A=N, C=K → different, but B (knight) must be truthful → contradiction | **No** |
| 6 | **N** | **K** | **N** | ✓ A lies correctly | A=N, C=N → same; B (knight) tells truth ✓ | **Yes** |
| 7 | N | N | K | ✗ A (knave) says B is a knave, which is *true* → contradiction | — | **No** |
| 8 | N | N | N | ✗ same problem as 7 | — | **No** |
### Result
- **C is a knave.** Both surviving cases (4 and 6) agree on this, so C's type is determined.
- **A and B are always opposite types**, but you cannot tell which is which from the statements alone. Either A is a knight and B a knave, or A is a knave and B a knight. The information given is insufficient to distinguish between those two.
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
- Processing prompt
- Thinking · first token after 6.8 s
- Thought: Let me think carefully about this logic puzzle. Knights always tell the truth, knaves … pure logic puzzle, no tools needed. I can just answer directly.
- Writing response
- Done · prefill 5.0 s for 12,800 tokens · 1,332 generated