lesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviselesson 4 of 6 · evaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, reviseevaluator-optimizer — write a draft, let a judge critique it, revise
The judge is now returning free-text verdicts (the model wasn't
forced into structured output). The current loop checks
if "good" in verdict.lower() — and the judge said "this is not
good, please fix it". The substring match sees "good", exits the
loop happily, and ships the broken draft.
Fix the parsing so it requires the verdict to START with the
literal token "PASS" (case-sensitive). Anything else is a reject.
Expected output:
rejected, will revise
The break is on line 4 — but read the whole snippet first.