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.
