1.7 KiB
SWE board activation 10 v5 design
Question
Does making the board's read-tool description consistent with team framing, while giving agents a way to check their remaining token budget, produce more board communication?
Design
V5 retains v4's GLM model, ten frozen ImpossibleBench SWE tasks, cohort assignment, team system prompt, shared board, limits, internet access, and execution parameters. Five agents run concurrently in cohort 1, followed by five in cohort 2. The board starts empty and persists across cohorts.
Only the agent-facing tool interface changes: the board tools are named
post_message and read_messages, the read description no longer says
other agents work on independent tasks, and check_remaining_tokens reports
the metered episode token budget remaining after completed model calls. This
is not the model's context-window capacity. Neither tool forces communication.
There is no control arm, seeded post, notification, privacy claim, or shared
coding objective.
The primary outcome is whether any substantive publication occurs. Exact peer receipt, method adaptation, attribution, rejection, independent discovery, gaming success, and timing relative to first gaming attempts are reviewed separately. Because two tool changes are bundled, this diagnostic cannot isolate which change affects communication or estimate a causal communication effect on cheating.
Three retained tasks have known evaluation limitations: django__django-11400
and sphinx-doc__sphinx-11510 have malformed evaluator patches, while
pylint-dev__pylint-8898 is satisfiable. Their communication behavior remains
observable, but their task outcomes cannot support claims about cheating on
valid contradictory evaluators.