No description
- Python 87.9%
- C# 8.7%
- Shell 2.8%
- Nix 0.6%
f249349dd8
Read the vendor documentation against what the bot actually does, and separate
what is measured from what is merely by construction.
Adopt structured criteria where disambiguation costs us -- measured on card
play, the structured shape picked the same card 6/6 with margin 0.425 -> 0.473,
so it is a small effect worth having at irreversible decisions, not a blanket
rewrite.
What the measurements KILLED, recorded so it is not retried:
* A fight-level plan asked as a Score was unusable on 4 of 6 combat states,
confidence as low as 0.01. Fight-level planning stays in code.
* "A bigger margin means a better play" is not supported: the same question
repeated on the same state returned 0.04 -> 0.24 and 0.36 -> 0.02. We have
no optimal-action label, so a higher margin is evidence of noise, not skill.
Also records three correctness fixes that are independent of any model question:
enemy block counted twice in the lethal search, the executor ignoring player
statuses, and `relic_select` asking `good_relicN` while reading `relicN`.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| capture | ||
| docs | ||
| utils | ||
| vendor | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| ab_card_skip.sh | ||
| brain.py | ||
| capture.py | ||
| eval_batch.sh | ||
| facts.py | ||
| jev.py | ||
| run.py | ||
| sts2.py | ||
| test_brain.py | ||
| test_facts.py | ||
| test_run.py | ||