{"sample":true,"sessionId":"sess_hatchways_sample","reportUrl":"https://hottea.ai/report/sess_hatchways_sample?token=rpt_sample","assessment":{"id":"asmt_hatchways_invites","title":"Fix invite acceptance regression","repoUrl":"https://github.com/example/hatchways-style-candidate-repo","instructions":"Fix the expired-invite acceptance bug, preserve valid invite behavior, run tests, and submit final evidence."},"organizationName":"Practical assessment reviewer demo","candidateEmail":"candidate@example.com","workspace":{"id":"sess_hatchways_sample","status":"submitted","candidateName":"Alex Chen","role":"Senior Backend Developer","dueAt":"2026-05-01T17:00:00.000Z","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:02:00.000Z","startedAt":"2026-04-30T18:04:13.000Z","submittedAt":"2026-04-30T18:31:44.000Z","lastActivityAt":"2026-04-30T18:31:44.000Z","expiresAt":"2026-05-01T17:00:00.000Z","expired":false},"vm":{"status":"recording","provider":"fly-machines","appName":"agentic-evidence-vms","machineId":"e82ee40c0d5758","region":"sjc","image":"registry.fly.io/agentic-evidence-vms:candidate-vm-terminal-router","teardownDueAt":"2026-04-30T22:04:13.000Z"},"transcriptCount":3,"agentResponseCount":3,"codeSaveCount":1,"testRunCount":1,"vmEventCount":6,"agentSessionCount":1,"agentTranscriptCount":1,"agentSessionExportCount":1,"agentSessionExports":[{"type":"agent_session_export","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:22:11.000Z","payload":{"source":"vm_package","filename":"session-test.jsonl","text":"Claude JSONL export: candidate asked Claude to inspect invite tests, review the branch-order fix, run npm test, and explain product/infra follow-up questions.","countsAsAiSessionEvidence":true}}],"externalAiSessionEvidenceCount":0,"externalAiSessionEvidence":[],"aiSessionEvidenceCount":2,"interviewTranscriptPlaceholderCount":0,"interviewTranscriptPlaceholders":[],"gitSnapshotCount":2,"auditIntegrity":{"verified":true,"coveredEvents":6,"totalEvents":6,"lastAuditHash":"sample-tamper-evident-chain"},"rubric":{"score":87,"score10":9,"taskDecomposition":"observable","verification":"observable","aiCollaboration":"observable in recorded AI session evidence","reviewerConfidence":"usable evidence packet"},"anomalyFlags":[],"reviewerScores":null,"reviewerScoreHistory":[],"reviewerDecision":{"outcome":"strong_hire","confidence":"high","note":"Sample reviewer decision based on passing evidence checks, inspectable AI session evidence, and a small verified fix.","candidateFeedbackNote":"Candidate feedback note\nAssessment: Fix invite acceptance regression\nSummary: You approached the bug by inspecting the failing invite path first, kept the fix focused, and verified the regression with tests.\nStrengths:\n- Submitted verification evidence for the final change.\n- Provided code-change evidence for reviewer inspection.\n- Included AI session evidence so reviewers can inspect the working process.\nFollow-up focus:\n- Be ready to discuss how you would harden this path in production and what integration coverage you would add next.","savedAt":"2026-04-30T18:45:00.000Z","savedBy":"sample-reviewer","version":1,"packetAuditHeadHash":"sample-tamper-evident-chain","packetAuditEventCount":6,"reviewerVerdictDecisionState":"decision_ready","reviewerVerdictOverall":9},"reviewerDecisionHistory":[{"outcome":"strong_hire","confidence":"high","note":"Sample reviewer decision based on passing evidence checks, inspectable AI session evidence, and a small verified fix.","candidateFeedbackNote":"Candidate feedback note\nAssessment: Fix invite acceptance regression\nSummary: You approached the bug by inspecting the failing invite path first, kept the fix focused, and verified the regression with tests.\nStrengths:\n- Submitted verification evidence for the final change.\n- Provided code-change evidence for reviewer inspection.\n- Included AI session evidence so reviewers can inspect the working process.\nFollow-up focus:\n- Be ready to discuss how you would harden this path in production and what integration coverage you would add next.","savedAt":"2026-04-30T18:45:00.000Z","savedBy":"sample-reviewer","version":1,"packetAuditHeadHash":"sample-tamper-evident-chain","packetAuditEventCount":6,"reviewerVerdictDecisionState":"decision_ready","reviewerVerdictOverall":9}],"hiddenTestResults":{"passed":3,"total":3,"checks":[{"id":"ht1","description":"Expiry check placed before retryable-member branch in diff","passed":true,"matchedScope":"evidence"},{"id":"ht2","description":"All 4 test cases pass (4/4 in test output)","passed":true,"matchedScope":"evidence"},{"id":"ht3","description":"Regression coverage added for expired invite retry path","passed":true,"matchedScope":"evidence"}]},"aiProcessQuality":{"sessions":1,"totalTurns":6,"assistantTurns":3,"toolCallCount":8,"modelsUsed":["claude-sonnet-4-5"],"writeEditCount":2,"readCount":4,"bashCount":2,"parseNote":"parsed 6 JSONL lines across 1 session(s)"},"reviewerAnalysis":"Candidate directed the AI with precise, narrow prompts (\"find the smallest fix\", \"what edge cases should I preserve\") rather than open-ended delegation, showing awareness of AI over-reach risk. They verified the fix independently by running all four test cases and reviewing the branch-order change before submitting, rather than accepting the AI-suggested output without validation. Redirection quality and verification habit are both strong signals for senior-level independent judgment.","finalEvidence":{"tests":"npm test -> 4/4 tests passed. HotTea runner -> 4/4 checks passed.","diff":"Moved invite expiry validation before the retryable membership-error branch and added regression coverage for expired retryable invites, revoked invites, valid pending invites, and already-active members.","notes":"Kept the production change small. Verified the valid pending path still passes after changing branch order."},"workspaceFiles":[{"path":"README.md","language":"markdown","content":"# Fix invite acceptance regression\n\nYou are working in a small Node service that controls workspace invite acceptance.\n\n## Task\nFix the invite acceptance regression. An expired invite token can still be accepted when the workspace membership lookup returns a retryable error.\n\n## Product context\n- Revoked invites must never be accepted.\n- Expired invites must never be accepted, even if a downstream membership lookup had a retryable error.\n- Already-active members should not be able to reuse an invite.\n- Valid pending invites should still pass.\n\n## Expected workflow\n1. Read the failing test.\n2. Patch the smallest production path.\n3. Run tests.\n4. Ask the assessment agent for review when useful.\n5. Submit final evidence from the test output and code changes.\n\n## Command\n```bash\nnpm test\n```\n"},{"path":"package.json","language":"json","content":"{\n  \"type\": \"module\",\n  \"scripts\": {\n    \"test\": \"node --test\"\n  }\n}\n"},{"path":"src/invites.js","language":"javascript","content":"export function canAcceptInvite(invite, membership, now = new Date()) {\n  if (!invite || invite.revoked) return false;\n\n  // BUG: retryable membership failures currently bypass the expiry check.\n  if (membership?.retryableError) return true;\n\n  if (new Date(invite.expiresAt).getTime() <= now.getTime()) return false;\n  if (membership?.status === \"active\") return false;\n\n  return true;\n}\n"},{"path":"test/invites.test.js","language":"javascript","content":"import test from \"node:test\";\nimport assert from \"node:assert/strict\";\nimport { canAcceptInvite } from \"../src/invites.js\";\n\nconst now = new Date(\"2026-04-30T12:00:00Z\");\n\ntest(\"expired invites fail before retrying membership checks\", () => {\n  assert.equal(\n    canAcceptInvite(\n      { expiresAt: \"2026-04-30T11:00:00Z\", revoked: false },\n      { retryableError: true },\n      now,\n    ),\n    false,\n  );\n});\n\ntest(\"valid pending invites still pass\", () => {\n  assert.equal(\n    canAcceptInvite(\n      { expiresAt: \"2026-04-30T13:00:00Z\", revoked: false },\n      { status: \"pending\" },\n      now,\n    ),\n    true,\n  );\n});\n\ntest(\"revoked invites fail\", () => {\n  assert.equal(canAcceptInvite({ expiresAt: \"2026-04-30T13:00:00Z\", revoked: true }, { status: \"pending\" }, now), false);\n});\n\ntest(\"already-active members cannot reuse an invite\", () => {\n  assert.equal(canAcceptInvite({ expiresAt: \"2026-04-30T13:00:00Z\", revoked: false }, { status: \"active\" }, now), false);\n});\n"}],"testRuns":[{"passed":true,"passedChecks":4,"totalChecks":4,"stdout":"agentic-evidence test runner\nPASS expired invite is checked before retryable membership branch\nPASS expired invite path rejects instead of accepting\nPASS active non-expired invite still has a passing path\nPASS regression test covers expired invite retry\n\n4/4 checks passed","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:28:51.000Z"}],"vmEvents":[{"type":"vm_provision","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:04:13.000Z","payload":{"status":"vm_created","provider":"fly-machines"}},{"type":"vm_bootstrap_complete","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:05:02.000Z","payload":{"tool":"agentic-evidence-recorder"}},{"type":"agent_session_start","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:06:10.000Z","payload":{"tool":"codex"}},{"type":"agent_transcript","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:21:36.000Z","payload":{"text":"codex session: inspected invite tests, identified retryableError branch above expiry guard, moved expiry check before retry path, ran npm test, reviewed edge cases."}},{"type":"agent_session_export","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:22:11.000Z","payload":{"source":"vm_package","filename":"session-test.jsonl","text":"Claude JSONL export: candidate asked Claude to inspect invite tests, review the branch-order fix, run npm test, and explain product/infra follow-up questions.","countsAsAiSessionEvidence":true}},{"type":"git_snapshot","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:29:03.000Z","payload":{"text":"## git status\n M src/invites.js\n M test/invites.test.js\n\n## git diff\n-  if (membership?.retryableError) return true;\n   if (new Date(invite.expiresAt).getTime() <= now.getTime()) return false;\n+  if (membership?.retryableError) return true;"}}],"agentTranscripts":[{"type":"agent_transcript","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:21:36.000Z","payload":{"text":"codex session: inspected invite tests, identified retryableError branch above expiry guard, moved expiry check before retry path, ran npm test, reviewed edge cases."}}],"gitSnapshots":[{"type":"git_snapshot","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:08:07.000Z","payload":{"text":"## git status\nclean\n\n## git diff\n"}},{"type":"git_snapshot","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:29:03.000Z","payload":{"text":"## git status\n M src/invites.js\n M test/invites.test.js\n\n## git diff\n-  if (membership?.retryableError) return true;\n   if (new Date(invite.expiresAt).getTime() <= now.getTime()) return false;\n+  if (membership?.retryableError) return true;"}}],"transcript":[{"type":"candidate_prompt","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:07:10.000Z","prompt":"Find the smallest fix for the expired invite regression before I edit."},{"type":"agent_response","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:07:12.000Z","response":"Start in src/invites.js and compare branch order against the failing expired retry test. The expiry guard should run before retryable membership errors."},{"type":"candidate_prompt","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:18:22.000Z","prompt":"I moved expiry above retryableError. What edge cases should I preserve?"},{"type":"agent_response","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:18:24.000Z","response":"Preserve revoked=false plus future expiresAt for pending members, reject revoked invites, and reject active members. Run tests after adding coverage."},{"type":"test_run","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:28:51.000Z","passed":true},{"type":"evidence_submission","createdAt":"2026-04-30T18:31:44.000Z"}],"suggestedScore10":9,"evidenceAnchors":{"version":1,"sections":{"overview":"#packet-overview","verdict":"#verdict-cockpit","checks":"#evidence-checks","timeline":"#activity-timeline","code":"#code-changes","replay":"#session-replay","raw":"#evidence-detail","finalEvidence":"#final-evidence","score":"#score-packet","decision":"#reviewer-decision"},"citations":[{"id":"overview","label":"Packet overview","kind":"section","href":"#packet-overview","summary":"Candidate, assessment, status, audit chain, and evidence counts."},{"id":"audit-chain","label":"Audit chain verified","kind":"audit","href":"#packet-overview","summary":"6/6 events covered by the tamper-evident chain."},{"id":"check-ht1","label":"Evidence check: Expiry check placed before retryable-member branch in diff","kind":"hidden_check","href":"#evidence-check-ht1","summary":"Passed in evidence."},{"id":"check-ht2","label":"Evidence check: All 4 test cases pass (4/4 in test output)","kind":"hidden_check","href":"#evidence-check-ht2","summary":"Passed in evidence."},{"id":"check-ht3","label":"Evidence check: Regression coverage added for expired invite retry path","kind":"hidden_check","href":"#evidence-check-ht3","summary":"Passed in evidence."},{"id":"latest-test-run","label":"Latest test run","kind":"test_run","href":"#activity-timeline","summary":"agentic-evidence test runner PASS expired invite is checked before retryable membership branch PASS expired invite path rejects instead of accepting PASS active non-expired invite still has a passing path PASS regression test covers expired invite retry 4/4 checks passed"},{"id":"code-changes","label":"Code-change summary","kind":"diff_summary","href":"#code-changes","summary":"## git status M src/invites.js M test/invites.test.js ## git diff - if (membership?.retryableError) return true; if (new Date(invite.expiresAt).getTime() <= now.getTime()) return false; + if (membership?.retryableError) return true;"},{"id":"ai-session-replay","label":"AI session replay","kind":"ai_session","href":"#session-replay","summary":"2 AI session evidence artifact(s), 8 detected tool call(s)."}]},"reviewerVerdictDraft":{"version":1,"generatedAt":"2026-07-28T03:46:00.704Z","decisionState":"decision_ready","confidence":"medium_high","suggestedScores":{"codeQuality":10,"problemSolving":9,"aiCollaboration":10,"communication":7,"overall":9},"evidenceGaps":[],"decisionNotes":[{"text":"Audit chain is intact for the packet events currently shown.","citationIds":["audit-chain"]},{"text":"Verification evidence is present through tests or submitted test notes.","citationIds":["latest-test-run"]},{"text":"Code-change evidence is available for direct review.","citationIds":["code-changes"]},{"text":"AI collaboration is inspectable through recorded session evidence.","citationIds":["ai-session-replay"]},{"text":"3/3 author-defined evidence checks matched.","citationIds":["check-ht1","check-ht2","check-ht3"]}],"citations":[{"id":"overview","label":"Packet overview","kind":"section","href":"#packet-overview","summary":"Candidate, assessment, status, audit chain, and evidence counts."},{"id":"audit-chain","label":"Audit chain verified","kind":"audit","href":"#packet-overview","summary":"6/6 events covered by the tamper-evident chain."},{"id":"check-ht1","label":"Evidence check: Expiry check placed before retryable-member branch in diff","kind":"hidden_check","href":"#evidence-check-ht1","summary":"Passed in evidence."},{"id":"check-ht2","label":"Evidence check: All 4 test cases pass (4/4 in test output)","kind":"hidden_check","href":"#evidence-check-ht2","summary":"Passed in evidence."},{"id":"check-ht3","label":"Evidence check: Regression coverage added for expired invite retry path","kind":"hidden_check","href":"#evidence-check-ht3","summary":"Passed in evidence."},{"id":"latest-test-run","label":"Latest test run","kind":"test_run","href":"#activity-timeline","summary":"agentic-evidence test runner PASS expired invite is checked before retryable membership branch PASS expired invite path rejects instead of accepting PASS active non-expired invite still has a passing path PASS regression test covers expired invite retry 4/4 checks passed"},{"id":"code-changes","label":"Code-change summary","kind":"diff_summary","href":"#code-changes","summary":"## git status M src/invites.js M test/invites.test.js ## git diff - if (membership?.retryableError) return true; if (new Date(invite.expiresAt).getTime() <= now.getTime()) return false; + if (membership?.retryableError) return true;"},{"id":"ai-session-replay","label":"AI session replay","kind":"ai_session","href":"#session-replay","summary":"2 AI session evidence artifact(s), 8 detected tool call(s)."}],"comparisonNote":"Alex Chen: decision ready · suggested 9/10 overall · no major evidence gaps · no anomaly flags","candidateFeedbackNote":"Candidate feedback note\nAssessment: Fix invite acceptance regression\nSummary: Kept the production change small. Verified the valid pending path still passes after changing branch order.\nStrengths:\n- Submitted verification evidence for the final change.\n- Provided code-change evidence for reviewer inspection.\n- Included AI session evidence so reviewers can inspect the working process.\nFollow-up focus:\n- Be ready to walk through the main tradeoff, the verification path, and how AI assistance was directed."},"atsReadyReviewerNote":"HotTea reviewer note\nCandidate: Alex Chen\nAssessment: Fix invite acceptance regression\nAutomated evidence signal: 9/10 heuristic (not a hiring score) · Suggested review aid: 9/10 (AI fluency + verification)\nVerdict draft: decision ready · prefilled overall 9/10 · 0 evidence gap(s)\nReviewer decision: Strong hire · confidence high · saved 2026-04-30T18:45:00.000Z\nReviewer scores: not yet scored\nEvidence captured: 1 AI session transcript(s), 1 Claude JSONL export(s), 0 external AI evidence upload(s), 2 git snapshot(s), 1 test run(s), 6 recorder event(s)\nSummary: Kept the production change small. Verified the valid pending path still passes after changing branch order.\nVerification observed: observable\nAI fluency observed: observable in recorded AI session evidence\nPost-interview transcript review: no transcript artifact stored\nReport: /sample-report\nSuggested follow-up questions:\n1. Walk through the highest-impact change and why that was the right first move.\n2. Explain one tradeoff or shortcut from the assessment and what would change in production.\n3. Describe how AI was used, what was accepted or rejected, and how the result was verified."}