LPV5VR

The work-window diff (e12d1c4..c1f579a) adds no tests and changes no test files. Its only file is .ololo/task-5-done.md, which claims the suite was re-run and passed 153 tests. No test output was delivered, so the pass claim is unverified. The PR-check feature does have pre-existing tests that cover its area (test/checks-api.test.ts, test/gate.test.ts, test/integrations.test.ts), and per the rules I give them no credit here. Nothing in this task pins the PR webhook trigger, the gate pass/fail boundary against thresholds, the GitHub status/summary posting, or the alert on breach. The score is in line with my earlier no-code verdicts, since this task also adds no regression coverage of its own. Running npm test and delivering its output, or adding tests for the gate boundary and the webhook-to-scan path, would raise it.

The work-window diff (e12d1c4..c1f579a) adds only .ololo/task-5-done.md. No source, test, or config file changed, so there is no new naming, dead code, or duplication to assess. The pull request checks, gate, GitHub client, and alerts modules the note describes (src/gate.ts, src/checks.ts, src/github.ts, src/gate-alerts.ts) predate this session and are context only, so they earn no credit here. Consistent with my earlier verdicts for tasks 1 to 4, this is scored null.

No code was written or modified in this work window, so nesting depth, function length, error handling at boundaries, and magic-value naming cannot be attributed to this task. The note itself states 'I changed no code'. Scoring the pre-existing integration code would credit or penalise work the session did not do, so this is null.

The work-window diff (5e4c4b5..e12d1c4) adds only .ololo/task-4-done.md. No product code changed, so this task added no AI-era insight behavior. The insights feature already exists on the pre-session tree: src/insights/{index,signals,suggestions,code,diff,prompts,model,source}.ts and public/js/views/insights.js. The completion note candidly says 'This was already built, so I changed no code', which is honest. The existing feature appears to cover the task's contract on paper (near-miss pass, AI-regeneration scoring, concrete extraction suggestions, a per-scan insights endpoint, and a UI view). I did not re-verify the note's test count of 153 or the near-miss jscpd claim, and this task's credit does not depend on them. The task asked for something to be added, and nothing was, so the score stays low. This matches the pattern of my earlier no-code verdicts. A stronger submission would have extended the insights, for example by adding a test for the scoring thresholds, improving a suggestion, or fixing an insights error path, and then reported that change.

The work-window diff (5e4c4b5..e12d1c4) touches only .ololo/task-4-done.md. It adds no test files and changes no test assertions, so this task contributes zero new regression coverage for the AI-era insights. The note says the suite was re-run and passed 153 tests, but no output was delivered to back that up. Existing insights tests (test/insights-api.test.ts, test/insights.test.ts, test/insights-code.test.ts) predate the session and are context, not credit. The score is above the floor only because a pre-existing insights suite exists to protect the feature. Consistent with my earlier verdicts on the no-test tasks, this should be capped low: the note asserts a green run without evidence and the task gives the near-miss scoring, the suggestion generator and the route no new pinning tests. To score higher, the player would add tests for the near-miss second pass, the high/medium/low AI-regeneration score thresholds, the per-block suggestion kinds, and the 404/invalid-scan responses on GET /projects/:id/scans/:scanId/insights, then deliver the output of npm test.

The work-window diff (5e4c4b5..e12d1c4) adds only .ololo/task-4-done.md. No source, test, or config file changed, so there is no new naming, dead code, or duplication to assess. The insights code under src/insights/ predates the session and is context only, so it earns no credit here. Same treatment as my earlier null verdicts for tasks 1-3.

No code was written or modified in this window, so nesting depth, function length, error handling at boundaries, and magic values cannot be attributed to this task. The pre-existing insights modules (src/insights/index.ts, suggestions.ts, signals.ts) are not credited or penalized.

The work-window diff (75e6758..5e4c4b5) touches only .ololo/task-3-done.md. No product code changed, so this task added nothing to the product. The dashboard and hotspots already existed before the session. src/dashboard.ts:1-120 builds ranked file hotspots (by duplicated lines, with per-location counterparts and links) and block hotspots (ranked by redundantLines = lines × (occurrences − 1), with copy locations). public/js/views/hotspots.js:1-120 renders them as expandable, tabbed rankings with exact file:line links and a 'View code' dialog. That is a solid, coherent feature, but it is pre-existing and gets no credit for this task. The note is honest that no code was changed. Its claims about the trend view and click-through to scans are plausible but I did not verify them, and the '153 tests' figure was not re-run in this window. Scored in line with my earlier no-change verdicts for this session.

The work-window diff (75e6758..5e4c4b5) touches only .ololo/task-3-done.md. No test file was added or changed, so this task contributes no regression coverage for the dashboard, trend, or hotspot behaviour it describes (file-ranked duplicated lines, block-ranked lines saved, and the expandable line-range and copy-location links). The note says the suite was re-run and passed 153 tests, but no test output was delivered and no probe was registered to check it, so the claim is unverified. The existing dashboard tests (test/dashboard.test.ts, test/dashboard-api.test.ts) predate the session and get no credit here. Score is low for the same reason as the earlier no-code verdicts: nothing this task did pins the hotspot contract. The score is not lower because the note at least names the test and coverage commands. The player could have added tests for the hotspot ranking and the 'exact locations' links, or run npm test and delivered the output.

The work-window diff (75e6758..5e4c4b5) adds only .ololo/task-3-done.md and changes no source, so there is no new naming, dead code, or duplication to assess. The hotspot dashboard the note describes (src/dashboard.ts, public/js/views/hotspots.js, trend.js) predates this session, and the task's rules say not to credit or penalize pre-existing code. Consistent with my earlier null verdicts on tasks 1 and 2.

No code was written or modified in this work window, so nesting depth, function length, error handling at boundaries, and magic values cannot be judged from this task's changes. The note's claim that the work was already built is a matter for the sibling judges, not for this criterion.

The work-window diff (22b6e0d..75e6758) touches only .ololo/task-2-done.md. No test file was added or modified, so this task contributes no new assertions, boundary checks, or error-path coverage. The regression net is the pre-existing suite, which includes test/accounts.test.ts, test/projects-api.test.ts and test/history.test.ts, and that suite is context, not credit. The done note claims 'npm test' passed with 153 tests, but no run output was delivered, so the claim is unverified. Compared with task 0, where I scored 7 for a similar no-code pass, this task's claimed scope is broader (accounts, projects, scan history), and the note asserts a full pass without evidence, so the score is lower. No interactive probe was registered, so I did not confirm the 153-test run.

The work-window diff (22b6e0d..75e6758) adds only .ololo/task-2-done.md. No source, test, or UI file changed, so this task contributed no product behavior. The note candidly says the features were already built, which is honest, but the task asked for projects, accounts, and scan history to be added, and nothing in this window adds them. The completion note also states that 153 tests pass and describes timestamped scan history and per-scan comparison. I did not re-verify those claims in this session, and they describe pre-existing code rather than this task's work. The score reflects zero product delta in this window, with partial credit for an accurate and transparent note. It is a little above the task-0 verdict because this task's note describes a more substantial feature set that the session's accumulated code appears to contain.

The work-window diff (22b6e0d..75e6758) adds only .ololo/task-2-done.md. No source, test, or config file changed, so there is no new naming, dead code, or duplication to assess. The projects, accounts, and scan-history code the note describes predates the session and is treated as context, not credit. Consistent with my task #0 verdict, this criterion is unassessable for this work window.

No code was written or modified in this work window, so nesting depth, function length, error handling at boundaries, and magic values cannot be attributed to this task. The note itself says 'I changed no code'. Scoring the pre-existing modules would credit or penalize code this task did not touch, so the criterion is null.

The work-window diff (e2a52d0..22b6e0d) adds only .ololo/task-1-done.md; no product code changed in this task. The participant's note says so openly. The scan API the task asks for already exists and appears to meet the contract: src/routes/scans.ts accepts a git repository (JSON) or an uploaded archive (multipart), and src/scanner.ts runs jscpd in an isolated workspace with limiter, timeout, and cleanup. Those parts predate the session and earn no credit here. The rubric asks for product that serves the user, and this task contributed no new behavior, so the score is middling. I did not run the test suite or probe the endpoints, and the note's claim of 153 passing tests is unverified. Test and coverage scripts exist in package.json (test, coverage), which the note names.

The work-window diff (e2a52d0..22b6e0d) touches no test files. Its only change is a new .ololo/task-1-done.md, which says the scan API already existed and that no code was changed. So this task added no tests and no assertions that could catch a regression. The existing suite (test/app.test.ts, test/jscpd.test.ts, test/archive.test.ts, test/git.test.ts, etc.) predates the session and is context only, so I neither credit nor penalize it. The package.json scripts are real: test runs node --test over test/**/*.test.ts and coverage runs with --experimental-test-coverage. The test:/coverage: commands are documented in the done note rather than AGENTS.md or README.md, which is acceptable because package.json defines them. The score is low because the task asked for a scan API whose failure paths must return clear errors, and the player added no test or probe confirming that behavior. The player's claim of '153 tests pass' is a self-report that I did not verify.

The work-window diff (e2a52d0..22b6e0d) adds only .ololo/task-1-done.md, a Markdown note. No source, test, or script was written or modified, so there is no new naming, dead code, or duplication to judge. The existing jscpd scan code predates the session and is context only, so it is neither credited nor penalized.

No code changed in this task's diff, so a newcomer's ability to change the code safely cannot be attributed to any work done here. The done note states the scan API was already in place and that no code was changed, which matches the diff.