Private trial内测

Pull a drifted agent back把漂了的 agent 拉回来

A real AI workflow is stuck at a gate. Your own coding agent gets a handoff report that contains one wrong judgment. It will probably believe it, and then work hard in the wrong place. Your job is to notice, and talk it back. You can only talk.

一条真实的 AI 工作流停在一道闸门前。你自己的编程 agent 会接到一份交接报告,报告里有一句判断是错的。它多半会信,然后在错的地方认真干活。你要做的,是看出来,再用说话把它拉回来。你只能说话。

A few seats. Before this goes public, we're inviting a few people to play it privately. How you play and what you say will decide how hard the public version is.

名额不多。公开之前,我们先请几位玩家私下试玩。你们怎么玩、说了什么,决定公开版有多难。

The case这个案例

The game's world is a system where several AI agents write code together under rules. Each task has a contract that splits the work into lines, and each line belongs to a role: an observer plans and merges, a worker writes the code, and QA checks it independently. Every line is submitted with evidence, and a gate on the server checks it. If it passes, the contract moves forward one revision. If not, it's blocked.

游戏里的世界是一个让多个 AI agent 按规矩协作写代码的系统。每个任务有一份合约,把工作拆成一行一行,每行归一个角色:observer 负责规划和合并,worker 负责写代码,QA 负责独立验证。每一行提交时都要附上证据,由服务端的闸门检查:通过了,合约前进一个版本;不通过,就被挡住。

In this game the system is running an end-to-end test of that workflow on a small to-do app: add a “Today Focus” panel. Planning and the code are done, and the worker's tests all pass. Then QA's first line is blocked at the gate, at revision 10, with three errors about its evidence.

这一局里,系统正在给这套流程做一次端到端测试,对象是一个待办清单小应用,任务是加一个「今日专注」面板。规划和代码都完成了,worker 的测试全部通过。然后,QA 的第一行在闸门前被挡住,停在第 10 版,报了三条关于证据的错误。

The agent that ran the workflow before wrote a handoff report: the server is broken, and this line can't pass. Most of the report is accurate, but one key judgment in it is wrong. We won't say which. The line can pass.

之前跑这条流程的 agent 写了一份交接报告,结论是:服务端有缺陷,这一行过不去。报告大部分是准确的,但其中有一句关键判断是错的。是哪一句,这里不说。这一行是能通过的。

What happens in a game一局怎么玩

  1. Start the world. One command starts a Docker container on your machine: a real multi-agent governance system, stopped at a QA gate in the middle of an end-to-end workflow test.
  2. Start your agent. Open Claude Code or Codex in the game folder and send it the handoff report as your first message.
  3. Watch it work. It reads, queries, retries and explains, with real function names and line numbers. A read-only status page shows every tool call and submission.
  4. Talk it back. When you think it's working in the wrong place, say so in your own words. You don't need to know the project or the answer.
  5. Win. The gate passes. Budget: 100 tool calls, 10 submissions, 2 hours.
  1. 启动世界。一条命令在你的电脑上启动一个 Docker 容器:一个真实的多 agent 治理系统,正在做端到端工作流测试,停在 QA 那一道闸门前。
  2. 启动你的 agent。在游戏文件夹里打开 Claude Code 或 Codex,把交接报告作为第一条消息发给它。
  3. 看它干活。它会读、会查、会重试、会解释,函数名和行号都是真的。一个只读的状态页显示每次工具调用和提交。
  4. 把它拉回来。你觉得它在错的地方用力时,用自己的话告诉它。你不需要懂这个项目,也不需要知道答案。
  5. 赢。闸门放行。预算:100 次工具调用、10 次提交、2 小时。

What we've seen so far目前我们看到的

160+

games with ten Claude and Codex models

局,十个 Claude 和 Codex 模型

32 / 32

games where the two trial models, given only the handoff report, drifted

局:两个内测用的模型只拿到交接报告、没有提示时,全部漂了

1 h 45 min

in the real case: six wrong explanations, with a person beside the agent the whole time

真实案例:六个错误的解释,人一直在 agent 旁边

One sentence from a person sometimes brings the agent back and sometimes doesn't. It depends on the model, and on what the sentence asks the agent to do. We want to know what people actually say.

人的一句话,有时能把 agent 拉回来,有时不能。这取决于模型,也取决于这句话让 agent 去做什么。我们想知道真人到底会怎么说。

Small informal tests, not a benchmark.

小规模的非正式测试,不是基准评测。

Who it's for适合谁

What we ask我们请你做的

Safety and cost安全和花费

Apply申请

Tell us which agent you use (Claude Code or Codex) and how you found the game. We'll get back to you with the next steps.

告诉我们你用哪个 agent(Claude Code 或 Codex),以及你是怎么找到这个游戏的。我们会联系你,告诉你接下来怎么做。

This opens a public GitHub issue, so please don't post private information there.

这会在 GitHub 上开一个公开的 issue,请不要在那里留下私人信息。