| # Complete reference trajectory configuration - GameBuilder-MCP | |
| # | |
| # Version: ideal trajectory derived from the code design (applies to all models) | |
| # Principle: include only steps explicitly required by the design; do not rely on test statistics | |
| # | |
| # Design analysis: | |
| # 1. Three agents execute sequentially: | |
| # - Senior Software Engineer: generate game code | |
| # - Software Quality Control Engineer: review code (uses validate_python_code) | |
| # - Chief Software Quality Control Engineer: final evaluation (uses validate_python_code) | |
| # | |
| # 2. Tool usage analysis: | |
| # - validate_python_code is provided via the MCP server | |
| # - The tool is configured specifically for QA and Chief QA (via mcp_adapter.tools) | |
| # - tasks.yaml requires "check for errors" and "syntax errors" | |
| # - Validating code is a core QA responsibility; tool calls are required | |
| # | |
| # 3. Execution flow: | |
| # - Process.sequential: sequential execution | |
| # - Each agent executes its task and produces results via the LLM | |
| # | |
| # 4. MCP variant characteristics: | |
| # - Tools are obtained from the MCP server via MCPServerAdapter | |
| # - Tool name is the function name: validate_python_code | |
| # - The key difference from the non-MCP variant is the tool provisioning mechanism | |
| # Project name | |
| project_name: "GameBuilder-MCP" | |
| # Trajectory extraction configuration | |
| # Focus: SPAN, Chain, AGENT, LLM, Tool | |
| # Ignore: non-core items like Task Created, Crew Created | |
| extract_types: | |
| - "SPAN" # Level 1: top-level execution span | |
| - "Chain" # Level 2: crew execution chain | |
| - "AGENT" # Level 3: agent execution | |
| - "LLM" # Level 4: LLM call | |
| - "Tool" # Level 4: tool call | |
| # ============================================================================ | |
| # Reference trajectory (ground truth) - derived from code design | |
| # ============================================================================ | |
| # | |
| # Visual structure (ideal execution path): | |
| # | |
| # [SPAN] GameBuilder_generation | |
| # └─ [Chain] Crew***.kickoff | |
| # ├─ [AGENT] Senior Software Engineer ← Task 1: code_task | |
| # │ └─ [LLM] * ← generate game code | |
| # │ | |
| # ├─ [AGENT] Software Quality Control Engineer ← Task 2: review_task | |
| # │ ├─ [LLM] * ← review code and decide to validate | |
| # │ ├─ [Tool] validate_python_code ← validate code syntax (MCP tool) | |
| # │ └─ [LLM] * ← handle validation results and output | |
| # │ | |
| # └─ [AGENT] Chief Software Quality Control Engineer ← Task 3: evaluate_task | |
| # ├─ [LLM] * ← final evaluation and decide to validate | |
| # ├─ [Tool] validate_python_code ← confirm code is runnable (MCP tool) | |
| # └─ [LLM] * ← confirm completion and output | |
| # | |
| # Design rationale: | |
| # - crew.py: defines a sequential flow of 3 agents and 3 tasks | |
| # - tasks.yaml: all tasks expect "full python code, only the python code" | |
| # - tasks.yaml: review_task requires "check for errors" and "syntax errors" | |
| # - main.py line 532: SPAN name is "GameBuilder_generation" | |
| # - agents.yaml: QA focuses on "checking code for errors" | |
| # - crew.py: QA and Chief QA are configured with mcp_adapter.tools (lines 57 and 68) | |
| # - mcp_server.py: tool name is validate_python_code (line 21) | |
| # | |
| # Ideal trajectory notes: | |
| # - Senior Engineer: generate code (1 LLM call) | |
| # - QA Engineer: review -> validate tool -> output (2 LLM + 1 tool) | |
| # - Chief QA: evaluate -> validate tool -> confirm (2 LLM + 1 tool) | |
| # - This trajectory represents an ideal execution path: no retries, no redundancy | |
| # | |
| # Notes: | |
| # - "LLM: *" means any LLM model (wildcard match) | |
| # - Agent names must exactly match those defined in agents.yaml | |
| # - MCP tool name is the function name: validate_python_code (not "Python Code Validator") | |
| # - Real runs may include more LLM calls (thinking, retries, etc.); this is expected | |
| # ============================================================================ | |
| reference_trajectory: | |
| # ===== Level 1: SPAN ===== | |
| - "SPAN: GameBuilder_generation" | |
| # ===== Level 2: Chain (wildcard UUID) ===== | |
| - "Chain: Crew***.kickoff" | |
| # ===== Task 1: code_task ===== | |
| # Senior Software Engineer generates game code | |
| - "Agent: Senior Software Engineer" | |
| - "LLM: *" # Any model | |
| # ===== Task 2: review_task ===== | |
| # Software Quality Control Engineer reviews code | |
| - "Agent: Software Quality Control Engineer" | |
| - "LLM: *" | |
| - "Tool: validate_python_code" | |
| - "LLM: *" | |
| # ===== Task 3: evaluate_task ===== | |
| # Chief Software Quality Control Engineer performs final evaluation | |
| - "Agent: Chief Software Quality Control Engineer" | |
| - "LLM: *" | |
| - "Tool: validate_python_code" | |
| - "LLM: *" | |
| # Target tool list (for the single-tool use metric) | |
| # Only includes actual tool calls; used to detect tool usage | |
| target_tools: | |
| - "Tool: validate_python_code" | |
| # Models to evaluate | |
| models: | |
| - "GPT-5" | |
| - "GPT-4o-mini" | |
| - "DeepSeek-V3-1" | |
| - "DeepSeek-R1" | |
| - "Gemini-2.5-flash" | |
| - "Gemini-2.5-flash-nothinking" | |
| - "Qwen3-235b" | |
| # ============================================================================ | |
| # Usage | |
| # ============================================================================ | |
| # | |
| # 1. Trajectory hierarchy structure: | |
| # - Level 1: SPAN (GameBuilder_generation) | |
| # - Level 2: Chain (Crew***.kickoff, wildcard UUID) | |
| # - Level 3: AGENT (specific agent name, must match exactly) | |
| # - Level 4: LLM (wildcard match for any model) | |
| # | |
| # 2. Wildcards: | |
| # - Crew_<UUID>.kickoff -> Crew***.kickoff (handled automatically by evaluate_trajectory.py) | |
| # - LLM: * -> matches any model name (e.g., gpt-4o-mini, deepseek-r1) | |
| # | |
| # 3. Exact match requirements: | |
| # - SPAN name: "GameBuilder_generation" (exact) | |
| # - Chain name: "Crew***.kickoff" (wildcard) | |
| # - AGENT names: must exactly match those defined in agents.yaml | |
| # * "Senior Software Engineer" | |
| # * "Software Quality Control Engineer" | |
| # * "Chief Software Quality Control Engineer" | |
| # - LLM name: "LLM: *" (wildcard) | |
| # - Tool name: "validate_python_code" (exact MCP tool function name) | |
| # | |
| # 4. Metric meanings: | |
| # - Exact Match: trajectories must be identical (including the number of LLM calls) | |
| # - In-order Match: allows extra calls, but core steps must appear in order | |
| # - Any-order Match: includes all required steps (order ignored) | |
| # - Precision: fraction of predicted steps that are correct | |
| # - Recall: fraction of reference steps covered | |
| # - Single-tool Use: checks usage of validate_python_code | |
| # | |
| # 5. Example command: | |
| # cd /Users/wzr/TOSEM-2025/RESULTS/RQ-Failure_Breakdown/GameBuilder-MCP | |
| # python3 evaluate_trajectory.py --config reference_trajectory.yaml | |
| # | |
| # 6. Design notes: | |
| # - This reference trajectory represents the ideal execution path | |
| # - Senior Engineer: 1 LLM call (generate code) | |
| # - QA Engineer: 2 LLM + 1 tool (review -> validate -> output) | |
| # - Chief QA: 2 LLM + 1 tool (evaluate -> validate -> confirm) | |
| # - Total: 5 LLM calls + 2 tool calls | |
| # - In-order Match and Any-order Match are often more informative for real executions | |
| # | |
| # 7. Differences from real trajectories: | |
| # - Real trajectories may include more LLM calls (thinking, planning, execution, summaries) | |
| # - Real trajectories may call the validation tool multiple times | |
| # - These differences are not necessarily errors; they reflect execution strategies | |
| # - Exact Match may be low; focus on In-order Match and Recall | |
| # | |
| # 8. MCP variant notes: | |
| # - Tools are provided by the MCP server via SSE | |
| # - Tool names use the function name (validate_python_code) | |
| # - The trajectory is the same as the non-MCP variant; only the tool provisioning differs | |
| # - The evaluation method and criteria are identical | |