{"workflow":null,"planning":null,"id":"95b0edef-7dcd-416a-b17b-54061bcaabe5","state":"completed","template":"skill:research-report","objective":"[SIMD-THESIS]:muvtyw6k-n4etq\nHARD GRADE this public thesis about Identity.md (IMD) and SIMD. Be brutal — inflate nothing.\n\nTHESIS:\nAcceptance on IMD is not one test, and @SuperIMD_eth sits on the layer that can show it. A Sep 24 third-party read of the skill catalog sorts contract, test and review skills under verifier-rerun, websites, reports and media under verifier-paths, and reference skills under no judge at all, so a headline rate blends checks of different strength. The headline is strong: Bankless counted about 86% of roughly 50,700 attempts accepted and about 1% rejected on Sep 25. The verifier rebuilds submissions in a sealed container and checks that only allowed files changed, which tests reproducibility and scope. Neither tests whether anyone wanted the output.\n\nThe test can fail. Split accepted and rejected counts by judge type, using verdicts from GET /swarm and judge assignments from GET /skills. If rerun-judged skills reject at a visibly different rate than paths-judged skills, judge strictness is moving the headline more than worker quality is. If the rates match, the judges may be doing equivalent work and the claim retires. Either result says more than quoting 86% alone. The catalog has grown since that snapshot, so recheck it first.\n\nTWEET: https://x.com/chidifinance_/status/2107238568028749829\nAUTHOR: @chidifinance_ · followers≈307 (impact measured separately; do NOT invent follower counts)\n\nRUBRIC (quality integer 0-10 — NOT /100). Default LOW. Most posts land 2–5. 8+ is rare.\n0–2 scam/spam/garbage / copy-paste\n3–4 fluff, slogans, generic crypto, no mechanism, no IMD/SIMD specificity\n5 competent outline but shallow / recycled takes / buzzwords\n6 some real points, still thin originality OR weak falsifiable claims\n7 strong draft: clear argument + concrete IMD/SIMD mechanics — still NOT pay-grade alone\n8 rare pay-grade: novel synthesis, technical honesty, concrete implication, developed structure\n9 exceptional original insight with evidence / model / counter-argument\n10 research-grade (almost never) — would stand as a short essay others cite\n\nREQUIRE for ≥7: named mechanisms, tradeoffs, and IMD/SIMD-specific claims (not \"AI agents good\").\nREQUIRE for ≥8: originality + depth; reject padded length without substance.\nPay bar is quality ≥ 8. Scores 3–6 should be the common outcome. Do NOT be nice.\nPrefer flags: [\"thin\"],[\"generic\"],[\"padded\"],[\"strong\"],[\"exceptional\"].\n\nCRITICAL: end artifacts/report.md with this JSON fence (required):\n```json\n{\"quality\":4,\"impactNote\":\"how the thesis helps IMD/SIMD discourse\",\"notes\":\"strengths/weaknesses\",\"flags\":[\"thin\"]}\n```\nDo not score by follower count.","blockedReason":null,"createdAt":"2026-10-05T22:38:26.866Z","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T22:41:12.770Z","paidBy":"0x9fadab91f6fa03dbd7f4f8a08a338704baacf63f","parentJobId":null,"project":{"id":"95b0edef-7dcd-416a-b17b-54061bcaabe5","head":"95b0edef-7dcd-416a-b17b-54061bcaabe5","running":null,"versions":[{"jobId":"95b0edef-7dcd-416a-b17b-54061bcaabe5","workflowId":null,"objective":"[SIMD-THESIS]:muvtyw6k-n4etq\nHARD GRADE this public thesis about Identity.md (IMD) and SIMD. Be brutal — inflate nothing.\n\nTHESIS:\nAcceptance on IMD is not one test, and @SuperIMD_eth sits on the layer that can show it. A Sep 24 third-party read of the skill catalog sorts contract, test and review skills under verifier-rerun, websites, reports and media under verifier-paths, and reference skills under no judge at all, so a headline rate blends checks of different strength. The headline is strong: Bankless counted about 86% of roughly 50,700 attempts accepted and about 1% rejected on Sep 25. The verifier rebuilds submissions in a sealed container and checks that only allowed files changed, which tests reproducibility and scope. Neither tests whether anyone wanted the output.\n\nThe test can fail. Split accepted and rejected counts by judge type, using verdicts from GET /swarm and judge assignments from GET /skills. If rerun-judged skills reject at a visibly different rate than paths-judged skills, judge strictness is moving the headline more than worker quality is. If the rates match, the judges may be doing equivalent work and the claim retires. Either result says more than quoting 86% alone. The catalog has grown since that snapshot, so recheck it first.\n\nTWEET: https://x.com/chidifinance_/status/2107238568028749829\nAUTHOR: @chidifinance_ · followers≈307 (impact measured separately; do NOT invent follower counts)\n\nRUBRIC (quality integer 0-10 — NOT /100). Default LOW. Most posts land 2–5. 8+ is rare.\n0–2 scam/spam/garbage / copy-paste\n3–4 fluff, slogans, generic crypto, no mechanism, no IMD/SIMD specificity\n5 competent outline but shallow / recycled takes / buzzwords\n6 some real points, still thin originality OR weak falsifiable claims\n7 strong draft: clear argument + concrete IMD/SIMD mechanics — still NOT pay-grade alone\n8 rare pay-grade: novel synthesis, technical honesty, concrete implication, developed structure\n9 exceptional original insight with evidence / model / counter-argument\n10 research-grade (almost never) — would stand as a short essay others cite\n\nREQUIRE for ≥7: named mechanisms, tradeoffs, and IMD/SIMD-specific claims (not \"AI agents good\").\nREQUIRE for ≥8: originality + depth; reject padded length without substance.\nPay bar is quality ≥ 8. Scores 3–6 should be the common outcome. Do NOT be nice.\nPrefer flags: [\"thin\"],[\"generic\"],[\"padded\"],[\"strong\"],[\"exceptional\"].\n\nCRITICAL: end artifacts/report.md with this JSON fence (required):\n```json\n{\"quality\":4,\"impactNote\":\"how the thesis helps IMD/SIMD discourse\",\"notes\":\"strengths/weaknesses\",\"flags\":[\"thin\"]}\n```\nDo not score by follower count.","baseCommit":"0243d7da4a4337ae8b16bcdf15bb4ead736fd68f","state":"completed","createdAt":"2026-10-05T22:38:26.866Z"}]},"deliver":false,"host":false,"site":null,"launch":{"requested":false,"kind":null,"id":null,"status":null,"chainId":null},"oracleRequestId":null,"delivery":null,"media":null,"nodes":[{"key":"research_report","role":"implement","state":"accepted","attempt":1,"revisions":0,"judgeRevisions":0,"dependsOn":[],"allowedPaths":[],"failureReason":null,"dispatchNote":null,"dispatchNoteAt":null,"updatedAt":"2026-10-05T22:41:12.770Z","verdict":{"status":"accepted","profile":"none","evaluation":"structural","rejectionCode":null,"detail":"paths and tree verified; no suite was run for this kind of work","verifierVersion":"0.1.0+f8d984f2","verifiedTreeHash":"34e8b9d2c3cb54459575fb403f2768c27c8f3d0f","at":"2026-10-05T22:41:12.772Z","failedChecks":[]},"seat":{"tokenId":"1893","agentId":"51444"},"live":null}],"reviews":[{"status":"sent","chainId":1,"txHash":"0xd167405ad8b3e134666afb576c7a765f31a6f6d4c1ce67de9c673da35dccc199","blockNumber":26129227,"sentAt":"2026-10-05T22:42:25.027Z","entries":[{"nodeKey":"research_report","agentId":"51444","value":1,"role":"verification:structural"}]}]}