open-swe/evals/reviewer/judge.py
Johannes du Plessis ace71b0fd0
feat: add reviewer graph + eval target wiring (#1241)
* feat: add reviewer graph + eval target wiring

- New `reviewer` graph (`agent/reviewer.py`) registered in langgraph.json
  alongside the main `agent` graph. Reuses the same sandbox lifecycle,
  GH proxy auth, and middleware primitives from `agent.server`, but with
  a narrower tool set, a reviewer-specific system prompt, no
  commit/push, and the `task` (subagent) tool stripped via
  `_ToolExclusionMiddleware` so review stays in one context.

- New `github_comment` tool: agents call it once per issue with
  `(file, line, body, severity)` and the eval scores those calls
  against golden comments.

- `ensure_no_empty_msg` middleware (the no_op nudge) is intentionally
  *not* on the reviewer's stack — that middleware exists to enforce the
  main agent's "always finalize via Slack/Linear/PR" contract, which
  the reviewer doesn't have. The main agent's behavior is unchanged.

- `evals/reviewer/target.py`: send PR info as a user message, extract
  every `github_comment` tool call (multiple expected per review) into
  the run output.

- `evals/reviewer/judge.py`: per-example evaluator now returns a list
  of metrics under `{"results": [...]}` so LangSmith averages each
  numeric key (f1/precision/recall/tp/fp/fn) across the experiment in
  the UI. Dropped the broken `aggregate_pr` summary evaluator that
  reached for an attribute that doesn't exist on `RunTree`.

- `evals/reviewer/run_eval.py`: `--limit` now slices the dataset via
  `client.list_examples(limit=N)` since `aevaluate` doesn't accept
  `max_examples`.

- Makefile: `dev` and `run` targets now use `uv run` so they work
  without an activated venv.

* resolve comments

---------

Co-authored-by: open-swe[bot] <open-swe@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-05-06 10:15:58 -07:00

199 lines
6.7 KiB
Python

"""LLM-judge evaluator for the reviewer eval.
Pairwise matches each agent-emitted candidate against each golden comment using
claude-opus-4-5 (the model martian used to score Devin Review). Returns
precision/recall/f1 per example, plus aggregate micro/macro metrics across
the experiment via a summary evaluator.
The judge prompt is kept verbatim from
withmartian/code-review-benchmark `step3_judge_comments.py` so scores are
directly comparable to martian's published numbers.
"""
from __future__ import annotations
import json
import threading
from typing import Any
from uuid import UUID
from langchain_anthropic import ChatAnthropic
from langsmith.schemas import Example, Run
JUDGE_MODEL = "claude-opus-4-5"
JUDGE_SYSTEM = "You are a precise code review evaluator. Always respond with valid JSON."
JUDGE_PROMPT = """You are evaluating AI code review tools.
Determine if the candidate issue matches the golden (expected) comment.
Golden Comment (the issue we're looking for):
{golden_comment}
Candidate Issue (from the tool's review):
{candidate}
Instructions:
- Determine if the candidate identifies the SAME underlying issue as the golden comment
- Accept semantic matches - different wording is fine if it's the same problem
- Focus on whether they point to the same bug, concern, or code issue
Respond with ONLY a JSON object:
{{"reasoning": "brief explanation", "match": true/false, "confidence": 0.0-1.0}}"""
_judge: ChatAnthropic | None = None
def _get_judge() -> ChatAnthropic:
global _judge
if _judge is None:
_judge = ChatAnthropic(model=JUDGE_MODEL, temperature=0.0, max_tokens=512)
return _judge
def _format_candidate(c: dict) -> str:
parts = []
if c.get("file"):
loc = c["file"]
if c.get("line") is not None:
loc += f":{c['line']}"
parts.append(f"Location: {loc}")
if c.get("severity"):
parts.append(f"Severity: {c['severity']}")
parts.append(f"Comment: {c.get('body') or c.get('comment') or ''}")
return "\n".join(parts)
def _format_golden(g: dict) -> str:
parts = []
if g.get("severity"):
parts.append(f"Severity: {g['severity']}")
parts.append(f"Comment: {g.get('comment', '')}")
return "\n".join(parts)
def _judge_pair(golden: dict, candidate: dict) -> dict[str, Any]:
prompt = JUDGE_PROMPT.format(
golden_comment=_format_golden(golden),
candidate=_format_candidate(candidate),
)
msg = _get_judge().invoke(
[{"role": "system", "content": JUDGE_SYSTEM}, {"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
)
raw = msg.content if isinstance(msg.content, str) else str(msg.content)
try:
start, end = raw.find("{"), raw.rfind("}")
return json.loads(raw[start : end + 1])
except (ValueError, json.JSONDecodeError):
return {"match": False, "confidence": 0.0, "reasoning": f"unparseable: {raw[:200]}"}
_PER_EXAMPLE_COUNTS: dict[UUID, dict[str, int | float]] = {}
_COUNTS_LOCK = threading.Lock()
def _record_counts(example_id: UUID, counts: dict[str, int | float]) -> None:
with _COUNTS_LOCK:
_PER_EXAMPLE_COUNTS[example_id] = counts
def _drain_counts() -> list[dict[str, int | float]]:
with _COUNTS_LOCK:
snapshot = list(_PER_EXAMPLE_COUNTS.values())
_PER_EXAMPLE_COUNTS.clear()
return snapshot
def judge_match(run: Run, example: Example) -> dict[str, Any]:
"""Per-example evaluator: compute precision/recall/f1/tp/fp/fn against goldens.
Stashes the raw counts on a process-local cache keyed by ``example.id`` so
``aggregate_pr`` can compute micro-averages without re-judging.
"""
candidates: list[dict] = list((run.outputs or {}).get("comments") or [])
goldens: list[dict] = list((example.outputs or {}).get("golden_comments") or [])
if not goldens:
return {"results": [{"key": "f1", "score": None, "comment": "no goldens"}]}
matched_goldens: set[int] = set()
matched_candidates: set[int] = set()
for ci, cand in enumerate(candidates):
for gi, gold in enumerate(goldens):
if gi in matched_goldens:
continue
res = _judge_pair(gold, cand)
if res.get("match"):
matched_goldens.add(gi)
matched_candidates.add(ci)
break
tp = len(matched_goldens)
fp = max(0, len(candidates) - len(matched_candidates))
fn = max(0, len(goldens) - tp)
precision = tp / (tp + fp) if (tp + fp) else 0.0
recall = tp / (tp + fn) if (tp + fn) else 0.0
f1 = 2 * precision * recall / (precision + recall) if (precision + recall) else 0.0
_record_counts(
example.id,
{"tp": tp, "fp": fp, "fn": fn, "precision": precision, "recall": recall, "f1": f1},
)
return {
"results": [
{"key": "f1", "score": f1},
{"key": "precision", "score": precision},
{"key": "recall", "score": recall},
{"key": "tp", "score": tp},
{"key": "fp", "score": fp},
{"key": "fn", "score": fn},
{"key": "n_candidates", "score": len(candidates)},
{"key": "n_goldens", "score": len(goldens)},
]
}
def _f1(p: float, r: float) -> float:
return 2 * p * r / (p + r) if (p + r) else 0.0
def aggregate_pr(runs: list[Run], examples: list[Example]) -> dict[str, Any]:
"""Summary evaluator: micro/macro precision-recall-F1 across the experiment.
Reads the per-example counts that ``judge_match`` stashed in the
process-local cache. Falls back to an empty result set if the cache
is empty (e.g. summary evaluator ran in a different process).
"""
counts = _drain_counts()
if not counts:
return {"results": []}
micro_tp = sum(int(c["tp"]) for c in counts)
micro_fp = sum(int(c["fp"]) for c in counts)
micro_fn = sum(int(c["fn"]) for c in counts)
micro_p = micro_tp / (micro_tp + micro_fp) if (micro_tp + micro_fp) else 0.0
micro_r = micro_tp / (micro_tp + micro_fn) if (micro_tp + micro_fn) else 0.0
micro_f1 = _f1(micro_p, micro_r)
n = len(counts)
macro_p = sum(float(c["precision"]) for c in counts) / n
macro_r = sum(float(c["recall"]) for c in counts) / n
macro_f1 = sum(float(c["f1"]) for c in counts) / n
return {
"results": [
{"key": "micro_precision", "score": micro_p},
{"key": "micro_recall", "score": micro_r},
{"key": "micro_f1", "score": micro_f1},
{"key": "macro_precision", "score": macro_p},
{"key": "macro_recall", "score": macro_r},
{"key": "macro_f1", "score": macro_f1},
{"key": "total_tp", "score": micro_tp},
{"key": "total_fp", "score": micro_fp},
{"key": "total_fn", "score": micro_fn},
]
}