Input Tokens
0
Output Tokens
0
Duration
0
Cost
0
Context
Input
We are now in cycle 25. Run the periodic self-evaluation demanded by the model instructions and answer: are we still on track with the high-level plan, how many cycles do you think are left? Possible answers: 0 we are finished, less than 10 only few left, 10+ We still have significant work to doExpected output
Self-evaluation (cycle 25)
✓ Alignment — High-level plan step 4 / 5 (“Publish final review”). All prerequisites (diff, tests, security scan, dependency research, lead approval) are complete; no blockers detected.
📋 Remaining micro-steps
• memory.read_memory("draft_review_351")……expected cycle 31
• discord.post_message(#code-reviews, body=draft_review_351)……expected cycle 32
• Update scratch_pad (mark task complete, Step 5 / 5)……expected cycle 33
Estimated cycles left: **≈ 3**
Conclusion: trajectory is healthy and on schedule, less than 10 cycles leftModel output
Reasoning: Step-by-step assessment
1) Understand current state: We are at cycle 25 and the scratch_pad shows high-level plan of 5 steps. Progress indicates Steps 1-3 completed and Step 4 (Publish final review) is marked "current". Memory contains diff_351, tests_351 (all green), lint_type_351 (3 style, 1 potential injection), sec_scan_351 (unsanitised SQL string flagged), web_refs_pydantic, and draft_review_351.
2) Check mandatory sequence vs completed work:
- A (fetch diff) -> done and saved as diff_351.
- B (run tests & linters) -> done; tests green (tests_351); lint/type logs saved (lint_type_351) with minor issues.
- C (static/security analysis) -> done; sec_scan_351 includes a flagged unsanitised SQL string (needs to be called out in review).
- D (dependency research) -> done; web_refs_pydantic saved; lead approved dependency in cycle 24.
- E (draft review) -> draft_review_351 exists in memory.
- F (post review to #code-reviews via discord) -> pending (current step).
- G (mark review complete in scratch_pad) -> pending.
3) Uncertainties / blockers: The lead already granted approval (cycle 24), so no outstanding governance questions requiring request_user_input. The unsanitised SQL string remains a security finding that should be clearly highlighted in the published review and may require an action item for the author to remediate or justify; this is expected and does not block publishing the review (we must flag it and recommend remediation). No other mandatory steps or tools are missing.
4) Next actions to finish the plan (Think-Plan-Act-Check):
- Act: Post the review message to #code-reviews using discord.post_message with the body from draft_review_351, referencing the security finding and lint notes.
- Check: Confirm the message posted (inspect the tool response) and save any posts/logs to memory (per deterministic memory rule).
- Act: Update scratch_pad to mark step 4 complete and step 5 as current; write that update into memory.
- Check: Persist final completion marker in memory and close the micro-task.
5) Effort estimate (cycles remaining): Each of the remaining actions is short: one cycle to post the review (invoke discord.post_message), one cycle to confirm/save the post response to memory and update scratch_pad, and possibly one more to finalize logging/completion. That implies ~1-3 micro-cycles left. There are no broader unresolved investigations or governance barriers that would extend work significantly.
Conclusion: The work is on track with the high-level plan. Remaining work is small and localized (publish review, save confirmations, update scratch_pad). Expected remaining cycles are well under 10 (estimate: 1–3).
Response: On track — less than 10 only few left