69cb298dbf
Produces reports/replit-agent-report.md: a complete, evidence-grounded contributor and orchestrator evaluation following the repo-review rubric attached by Alexander. ## What was done - Ran full git analysis: shortlog, log --stat, numstat per author, author-filtered commit samples, and direct source file inspection across lib/, routes/, scripts/ - Extracted rubric text from attached_assets/repo-review-rubric_1773962875790.pdf using pdftotext (available in the Nix environment) - Scored two contributors (alexpaynex and Replit Agent) on all five dimensions: Code Quality, Commit Discipline, Reliability, Scope Adherence, Integration Awareness - Scored orchestrator (Alexander) on Task Clarity, Agent Selection, Review Cadence, Architecture Stewardship, Progress vs. Churn - All scores are grounded in specific commits and file evidence (no filler) - Letter grades computed from composite averages per the rubric table ## Key findings - Both contributors score B (3.6 composite) — competent but with room to improve - alexpaynex: strong architecture and integration; weak on first-attempt reliability (14 commits for Task #27, 5 fix rounds for Task #28) - Replit Agent: clean TypeScript service patterns; 44% fix-commit ratio is too high - Orchestrator: excellent architecture stewardship (5/5); task clarity and review cadence both scored 3 due to high per-task fix cycles - Top 3 improvements: correctness invariants in task specs, mandatory testkit gate before task completion, ban dist-asset commits from source control ## Deviations None — report follows the three-part rubric structure exactly.