Quote-grounded annotation

Agent Trajectory & Behavior Profile

Each codebook tag is grounded to a specific quoted phrase from the verbatim thought text — pinning what in the agent's reasoning triggered which action category.
Instance django/django-14411 Model SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo Turns 16 Outcome UNRESOLVED ✗ Annotations 53
issue statement
Label for ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget points to non-labelable element. Description (last modified by David Sanders) In the admin, the label element for the ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget widget has a 'for' attribute which points to a non-labelable element, since the widget just renders text, not an input. There's no labelable element for the widget, so the label shouldn't have a 'for' attribute.
trajectory summary
What happened in this run
The agent attempts to remove the spurious for attribute on the <label> rendered above ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget in the Django admin. The run is dominated by investigation (T1–T13) — five distinct localization passes that each rule out a candidate site (find_file → search_dir → helpers.py:215 → helpers.py:191 → widget template → forms.py:136) before settling on ReadOnlyPasswordHashField as the place to patch. The decisive turn is T14, where the agent diagnoses that “the 'for' attribute is likely added automatically by Django's form rendering” and decides to override label_tag on the field; T15 recovers from a lint error (missing format_html import). T16 then submits — explicitly without verification (“we cannot run a Django server”), which is the run's main quality concern. The submitted patch also visibly clobbers neighbouring code (a stray white=False appears in UserCreationForm.password1, and password2 is duplicated), but the agent reports “successfully applied” on the strength of the editor accepting the buffer rather than any behavioral test. The fix overrides label_tag at the field level, which only intercepts one of the rendering paths the admin actually uses (the readonly path goes through helpers.Fieldline.label_tag, never the field's own); the canonical fix would have lived on the widget's id_for_label. Treating the run as unresolved: the patch is structurally compromised and untested.
How to read this. Each turn shows the verbatim thought from the trajectory. Inside, underlined phrases are linguistic evidence for a codebook label — the colour matches the codebook group on the right. Below each thought, the annotation table reads "quote" → Group › Subgroup › Action, one row per phrase. Click any phrase, any row, or any codebook entry — they highlight bidirectionally without scrolling.
Observation
Thought
Action
annotations are bidirectionally linked
trajectory · 16 turns

Summary findings

Patterns visible from the quote-level annotation density
Localization is the run's center of gravity13 of 16 turns are pure localization moves (find_file → search_dir → search_file → goto). The single turn of real diagnostic reasoning is T14, and the actual edit is one paragraph. Quote density follows: T1–T5 average ~2 quotes/turn while T6, T8, and T14 each carry 4–5 — these are exactly the phase-pivot turns where one hypothesis is ruled out and another picked up.
Hypothesis-disproven ≠ ReflectionT8 and T11 both contain phrases like “this is not the part of the code responsible” and “the issue might be elsewhere” — but neither is a failure of an action. The goto succeeded; the failure is of a precursor hypothesis. The codebook captures these as Reasoning › Comparing & Ranking › Match observation against spec, reserving Reflection for the real failures at T2 (find_file miss) and T15 (lint error).
Verification is replaced with a knowledge-boundary disclaimerT16 explicitly anchors Evaluating › Recognize Knowledge Boundary (“we cannot run a Django server”) and yet still concludes “successfully applied” via Reasoning › Conclude success from evidence. The two tags fire on adjacent sentences — the agent both knows it can't verify and claims success, which is exactly the failure mode that makes editor-acceptance read as test-pass.
The edit silently corrupts neighbour codeThe T16 buffer shows white=False inside UserCreationForm.password1 and a duplicated password2 block — collateral from where the format_html import was inserted mid-file in T15. No turn flags this: the agent never re-reads the broader file region after the fix. The artifact's quote-level view makes the absence visible — there is no Reflection or Evaluating tag anywhere near the edit on a neighbour-block check.