Model Comparison
Model Editorial Structural Class Conf SETL Theme
deepseek/deepseek-v3.2-20251201 0.00 ND Neutral 0.13 — Digital Access & Privacy
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 0.00 ND Neutral 0.12 — Open Knowledge & Participation
@cf/meta/llama-3.3-70b-instruct-fp8-fast lite 0.00 ND Neutral 0.90 0.00 No human rights theme
@cf/meta/llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct lite 0.00 ND Neutral 1.00 0.00 —
Section deepseek/deepseek-v3.2-20251201 claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 @cf/meta/llama-3.3-70b-instruct-fp8-fast lite @cf/meta/llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct lite
Preamble ND ND ND ND
Article 1 ND ND ND ND
Article 2 ND ND ND ND
Article 3 ND ND ND ND
Article 4 ND ND ND ND
Article 5 ND ND ND ND
Article 6 ND ND ND ND
Article 7 ND ND ND ND
Article 8 ND ND ND ND
Article 9 ND ND ND ND
Article 10 ND ND ND ND
Article 11 ND ND ND ND
Article 12 ND ND ND ND
Article 13 ND ND ND ND
Article 14 ND ND ND ND
Article 15 ND ND ND ND
Article 16 ND ND ND ND
Article 17 ND ND ND ND
Article 18 ND ND ND ND
Article 19 ND ND ND ND
Article 20 ND ND ND ND
Article 21 ND ND ND ND
Article 22 ND ND ND ND
Article 23 ND ND ND ND
Article 24 ND ND ND ND
Article 25 ND ND ND ND
Article 26 ND ND ND ND
Article 27 ND ND ND ND
Article 28 ND ND ND ND
Article 29 ND ND ND ND
Article 30 ND ND ND ND
0.00 Show HN: Badge that shows how well your codebase fits in an LLM's context window (github.comS:ND)
85 points by jimminyx 2 days ago | 40 comments on HN | Neutral Product · v3.7 · 2026-03-01 00:49:51 0
Summary Digital Access & Expression Acknowledges
This GitHub repository page is a technical resource view with minimal editorial content and primarily structural human rights signals. The page leverages GitHub's open platform architecture to support freedom of expression, information access, education, and collaborative participation across Articles 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27. However, analytics tracking and conditional intellectual property rights (Articles 12, 17) create offsetting concerns. Overall, the structural design acknowledges human rights through open access and non-discriminatory participation rather than actively championing them.
Article Heatmap
Preamble: ND — Preamble Preamble: No Data — Preamble P Article 1: ND — Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood Article 1: No Data — Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood 1 Article 2: ND — Non-Discrimination Article 2: No Data — Non-Discrimination 2 Article 3: ND — Life, Liberty, Security Article 3: No Data — Life, Liberty, Security 3 Article 4: ND — No Slavery Article 4: No Data — No Slavery 4 Article 5: ND — No Torture Article 5: No Data — No Torture 5 Article 6: ND — Legal Personhood Article 6: No Data — Legal Personhood 6 Article 7: ND — Equality Before Law Article 7: No Data — Equality Before Law 7 Article 8: ND — Right to Remedy Article 8: No Data — Right to Remedy 8 Article 9: ND — No Arbitrary Detention Article 9: No Data — No Arbitrary Detention 9 Article 10: ND — Fair Hearing Article 10: No Data — Fair Hearing 10 Article 11: ND — Presumption of Innocence Article 11: No Data — Presumption of Innocence 11 Article 12: ND — Privacy Article 12: No Data — Privacy 12 Article 13: ND — Freedom of Movement Article 13: No Data — Freedom of Movement 13 Article 14: ND — Asylum Article 14: No Data — Asylum 14 Article 15: ND — Nationality Article 15: No Data — Nationality 15 Article 16: ND — Marriage & Family Article 16: No Data — Marriage & Family 16 Article 17: ND — Property Article 17: No Data — Property 17 Article 18: ND — Freedom of Thought Article 18: No Data — Freedom of Thought 18 Article 19: ND — Freedom of Expression Article 19: No Data — Freedom of Expression 19 Article 20: ND — Assembly & Association Article 20: No Data — Assembly & Association 20 Article 21: ND — Political Participation Article 21: No Data — Political Participation 21 Article 22: ND — Social Security Article 22: No Data — Social Security 22 Article 23: ND — Work & Equal Pay Article 23: No Data — Work & Equal Pay 23 Article 24: ND — Rest & Leisure Article 24: No Data — Rest & Leisure 24 Article 25: ND — Standard of Living Article 25: No Data — Standard of Living 25 Article 26: ND — Education Article 26: No Data — Education 26 Article 27: ND — Cultural Participation Article 27: No Data — Cultural Participation 27 Article 28: ND — Social & International Order Article 28: No Data — Social & International Order 28 Article 29: ND — Duties to Community Article 29: No Data — Duties to Community 29 Article 30: ND — No Destruction of Rights Article 30: No Data — No Destruction of Rights 30
Negative Neutral Positive No Data
Aggregates
Editorial Mean ND Structural Mean ND
Weighted Mean 0.00 Unweighted Mean 0.00
Max 0.00 N/A Min 0.00 N/A
Signal 0 No Data 31
Volatility 0.00 (Low)
Negative 0 Channels E: 0.6 S: 0.4
SETL ℹ ND
FW Ratio ℹ 65% 48 facts · 26 inferences
Evidence 16% coverage ℹ
11M 9L 31 ND
Theme Radar
Foundation Security Legal Privacy & Movement Personal Expression Economic & Social Cultural Order & Duties Foundation: 0.00 (0 articles) Security: 0.00 (0 articles) Legal: 0.00 (0 articles) Privacy & Movement: 0.00 (0 articles) Personal: 0.00 (0 articles) Expression: 0.00 (0 articles) Economic & Social: 0.00 (0 articles) Cultural: 0.00 (0 articles) Order & Duties: 0.00 (0 articles)
HN Discussion 18 top-level · 12 replies
agentica_ai 2026-02-27 15:29 UTC link
Smart idea. Token budgets are becoming the new line count metric for the LLM era.
collabs 2026-02-27 15:40 UTC link
This is an interesting concept. Thank you for sharing. I have an export.sh or export.ps1 script that takes the relevant files in my repository and puts them in a `dump.txt` file inside `docs/llm`.

I am not very good with AI though. Is there a quick and easy way to calculate token count and add this to my dump.txt file, ideally using just simple, included by default Linux tools in bash or simple, included by default Windows tools in powershell?

Thank you in advance.

Towaway69 2026-02-27 15:42 UTC link
What’s the going rate for tokens in terms of dollars? How much are companies spending on “tokens”?

Also kind of ironic that small codebases are now in vogue, just when google monolithic repos were so popular.

jannniii 2026-02-27 15:42 UTC link
Interesting concept, but is it going to age well with context sizes of models are changing all the time (growing, mostly)?
nebezb 2026-02-27 15:46 UTC link
Useful and useless (or good and “less good”) aren’t easily mapped to big and small.

From a purely UX perspective, showing a red badge seems you’re conflating “less good” with size. Who is the target for this? Lots of useful codebases are large.

I do agree, however, that there’s value in splitting up domains into something a human can easily learn and keep in their head after, say, a few days of being deeply entrenched. Tokens could actually be a good proxy for this.

Retr0id 2026-02-27 15:46 UTC link
Some say that the ideal size of an individual function in a codebase is related to the amount of information you can hold in working memory. Maybe the ideal size for a library is the amount you can fit in an LLM context window?
b112 2026-02-27 16:01 UTC link
It's a fun, in the "style of the time" thing to track, but within a year or two, context window limitations won't be a thing.

Doubt me?

Think back 2 years. Now compare today. Change is at massive speed, and this issue is top line to be resolved in some fashion.

spicyusername 2026-02-27 16:04 UTC link
I'm not sure that smaller bases are always better.
KingOfCoders 2026-02-27 16:18 UTC link
Interesting, but not adding something to my CI for a badge, too paranoid.
ramoz 2026-02-27 16:36 UTC link
I haven't cared too much about repo tokens in a good while.

But my coolest app was a better context creator. I found it hard to extend to actual agentic coding use. Agentic discovery is generally useful and reliable - the overhead of tokens can be managed by the harness (i.e. Claude Code).

https://prompttower.com/

layer8 2026-02-27 17:00 UTC link
Maybe it’s useful to dig out the concept of modularization with a distinction between interface and implementation again, and construct agents that are able to make effective use of it.

In the case that interfaces remain unchanged, agents only need to look at the implementation of a single module at a time plus the interfaces it consumes and implements. And when changing interfaces, agents only need to look at the interfaces of the modules concerned, and at most a limited number of implementation considerations.

It’s the very reason why we humans invented modularization: so that we don’t have to hold the complete codebase in our heads (“context windows”) in order to reason about it and make changes to it in a robust and well-grounded way.

hennell 2026-02-27 17:31 UTC link
Outside of packages I doubt few of my code bases would fit into this. But the individual domain areas would. I don't care about users in a orders context, I don't care about payments when dealing with imports, no reason an ai should care either. It shouldn't care about implementations if there's an interface referenced, it shouldn't worry about front end when it's dealing with the back etc.

Scoping the Ai to only use the things you'd use seems far wiser than trying to reduce your codebase so it can look at the whole thing when 90% of it is irrelevant.

bilekas 2026-02-27 17:34 UTC link
Im curious if there is a deep need for entire codebase to be consumed in the first place?

It would be better to have the architecture support a more decoupled/modular design if you're going to rely heavy on LLMs.

That or let it consume high quality maintained documentation?

Doohickey-d 2026-02-27 17:47 UTC link
For at least some codebases, I'm not sure this is a useful metric. Because you don't usually put the whole codebase in your context at the same time.

For example in my current case, there are lots of files with CSS, SVG icons in separate files, old database migration scripts, etc. Those don't go in the LLM context 99% of the time.

Maybe a more useful metric would be "what percentage of files that have been edited in the last {n} days fit in the context"?

joshmarlow 2026-02-27 17:57 UTC link
On a related note, this type of reasoning is what made me flip my opinion on microservices. I've generally been skeptical of a many-microservice architecture for the last decade but LLMs change that - a small microservice is more likely to fit in a context window.

I think this gestures at a more general point - we're still focusing on how to integrate LLMs into existing dev tooling paradigms. We squeeze LLMs into IDEs for human dev ergonomics but we should start thinking about LLM dev ergonomics - what idioms and design patterns make software development easiest for AIs?

t1amat 2026-02-27 18:41 UTC link
Interesting idea, but I think it might have made more sense to use something like repomix to generate the source bundle and tiktoken’d that. Practically speaking you don’t send many source files in raw text form, either they have some sort of file wrapper with metadata or are pulled in from a tool call where the tool call arguments act as the metadata.
nicoburns 2026-02-27 19:12 UTC link
> Small codebases were always a good thing. With coding agents, there's now a huge advantage to having a codebase small enough that an agent can hold the full thing in context.

It is somewhat ironic that coding agents are notorious for generating much more code than necesary!

a13o 2026-02-27 19:31 UTC link
If you’re worried about fitting the window, make a RAG holding an AST transformation of your codebase
irishcoffee 2026-02-27 15:32 UTC link
Nah. I can write a whole program using 0 tokens, I can’t write a whole program with 0 lines of code.
c0balt 2026-02-27 15:45 UTC link
> What’s the going rate for tokens in terms of dollars?

It depends on the provider/model, usually pricing is calculated as $/million tokens with input/output tokens having different per token pricing (output tends to be more expensive than input). Some models also charge more per token if the context size is above a threshold. Cached operations may also reduce the price per token.

OpenRouter has a good overview over provider and models, https://openrouter.ai/models

The math on what people are actually paying is hard to evaluate. Ime, most companies rather buy a subscription than give their developers API keys (as it makes spending predictable).

iterateoften 2026-02-27 15:48 UTC link
> Who is the target for this?

Agents. Going to be more tools and software targeted for consumption by agents

Retr0id 2026-02-27 15:48 UTC link
max context sizes are probably going to go up, but smaller contexts will always be cheaper/more-efficient than larger ones
written-beyond 2026-02-27 16:16 UTC link
Gemini 1.5 Announced the 1 million token context window in 2024. I admire this view of being forward looking towards new technologies, specially when we see the history of how bad people can be at predictions just by looking at history HN posts/comments.

If we look at back 2 years, companies weren't investing into training their LLMs so heavily on code. Any code they got their hands on was what was in the LLMs training corpus, it's well known that the most recent improvements in LLM productivity occurred after they spent millions on different labs to produce more coding datasets for them.

So while LLMs have gotten a lot better at not needing the entire codebase in context at once, because their weights are already so well tuned to development environments they can better infer and index things as needed. However, I fail to see how the context window limitation would no longer be an issue since it's a fundamental part of the real world. Would we get better and more efficient ways of splitting and indexing context windows? Surely. Will that reduce our fear of soiling our contexts with bad prompt response cycles? Probably not...

arscan 2026-02-27 16:16 UTC link
I’m not so sure an increasingly large context window will be seen as a critical enabler (as it was viewed 6 months ago), after watching how amazingly effective subagents and tool calls are at tackling parts of the problem and surfacing the just the relevant bits for the task at hand. And if increasing the context window isn’t the current bottleneck, effort will be put elsewhere.
unglaublich 2026-02-27 16:37 UTC link
value/size
sltr 2026-02-27 17:17 UTC link
Blogged about modular code and LLMs few days ago

https://www.slater.dev/2026/02/relieve-your-context-anxiety-...

bee_rider 2026-02-27 17:36 UTC link
Maybe it could just measure the number of tokens for the examples (and then summarize what the examples show, under the assumption that that’s the actual functionality of the project). I’m 90% joking… but that last 10% makes me wonder…
layer8 2026-02-27 18:01 UTC link
Microservices are about deployment, less about code structure. You can have the same code modularization like microservices provide within a monolith instead, for example in the form of libraries. Conversely, you can in principle build several distinct microservices out of the same shared codebase.
GeoAtreides 2026-02-27 18:58 UTC link
functional programming get recked, OOP is back, baby!
f33d5173 2026-02-27 21:11 UTC link
They don't need to be services. You can - and many projects do - structure your code as a set of loosely coupled modules. Each module has a responsibility or set of responsibilities. They communicate with each other via well defined interfaces. For exposing code like this to an LLM, you would have them make a change to one or sometimes two modules, with access to the interface docs of all the other modules. The disadvantage of this compared to microservices is that if a module crashes it will take the entire process down with it, you can't move a module onto a different machine or create multiple instances of it as easily, etc. The advantage is that communication is done via function calls, which are simpler and more efficient than rpc.

> I think this gestures at a more general point - we're still focusing on how to integrate LLMs into existing dev tooling paradigms.

This is what we should be doing. This for a couple reasons. For one thing, humans don't have an entire codebase "in context" at a time. We should be recognizing that the limitations of an AI mirror the limitations of a person, and hence can have similar solutions. For another, the limitations of today's LLMs will not be the limitations of tomorrow's LLMs. Redesigning our code to suit today's limitations will only cause us trouble down the road.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
ND
Preamble Preamble
Low Practice

Page content provides no explicit editorial statement regarding human dignity or inalienable rights.

ND
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low Practice

No explicit editorial content addressing equality or human dignity.

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination
Low Practice

No explicit content addressing non-discrimination across protected characteristics.

ND
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security

Page content does not address right to life, liberty, or security.

ND
Article 4 No Slavery

Page content does not address slavery or servitude.

ND
Article 5 No Torture

Page content does not address torture or cruel treatment.

ND
Article 6 Legal Personhood

Page content does not address legal personhood.

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law

Page content does not address equal protection under law.

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy

Page content does not address right to remedies.

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

Page content does not address arbitrary arrest or detention.

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing

Page content does not address fair trial or due process.

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

Page content does not address criminal law or presumption of innocence.

ND
Article 12 Privacy
Low Practice

No explicit editorial content regarding privacy.

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement
Low Practice

No explicit editorial content regarding freedom of movement.

ND
Article 14 Asylum

Page content does not address asylum or protection from persecution.

ND
Article 15 Nationality

Page content does not address nationality rights.

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family

Page content does not address marriage or family rights.

ND
Article 17 Property
Low Practice

No explicit editorial content regarding property rights.

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought

Page content does not address freedom of thought, conscience, or religion.

ND
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
Medium Practice Advocacy

No explicit editorial content regarding freedom of expression.

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association
Medium Practice

No explicit editorial content regarding freedom of assembly.

ND
Article 21 Political Participation

Page content does not address participation in political governance.

ND
Article 22 Social Security

Page content does not address social security or social services.

ND
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay

Page content does not address labor rights or employment.

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure

Page content does not address rest and leisure.

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living
Low Practice

No explicit editorial content regarding adequate standard of living or healthcare.

ND
Article 26 Education
Medium Practice

No explicit editorial content regarding education or knowledge access.

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation
Medium Practice Advocacy

No explicit editorial content regarding participation in cultural life or intellectual property.

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order

Page content does not address right to effective social order.

ND
Article 29 Duties to Community

Page content does not address community duties or limitations on rights.

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

Page content does not address prevention of abuse of rights.
Structural Channel
What the site does
ND
Preamble Preamble
Low Practice

GitHub's open repository structure and public access model enable global participation and knowledge sharing, supporting foundational human rights principles of dignity and equal access.

ND
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low Practice

GitHub's public access model treats all users equally without visible role-based discrimination in repository access or participation rights.

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination
Low Practice

Repository access and participation mechanisms do not display visible discrimination based on personal characteristics; GitHub's community guidelines (referenced in DCP) establish baseline non-discrimination standards.

ND
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security

No structural evidence regarding physical security or personal safety.

ND
Article 4 No Slavery

No structural evidence regarding forced labor or servitude.

ND
Article 5 No Torture

No structural evidence regarding harm or punishment.

ND
Article 6 Legal Personhood

No structural evidence regarding legal recognition.

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law

No structural evidence regarding legal equality or justice.

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy

No structural evidence regarding access to justice.

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

No structural evidence regarding detention or arrest.

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing

No structural evidence regarding judicial proceedings.

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

No structural evidence regarding criminal justice.

ND
Article 12 Privacy
Low Practice

GitHub's privacy controls and data protection mechanisms (referenced in DCP) limit unauthorized access to repository and user information. Feature flags for analytics and tracking create potential privacy concerns but do not visibly expose private user data on this public repository page.

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement
Low Practice

Public repository access is not geographically restricted; users from any location can access and participate without visible movement barriers.

ND
Article 14 Asylum

No structural evidence regarding asylum or persecution.

ND
Article 15 Nationality

No structural evidence regarding nationality.

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family

No structural evidence regarding family or marriage.

ND
Article 17 Property
Low Practice

GitHub's platform terms (referenced in DCP) create conditional intellectual property rights rather than absolute ownership; user-generated content ownership is subject to platform control and terms of service, limiting absolute property rights.

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought

No structural evidence regarding conscience or belief.

ND
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
Medium Practice Advocacy

GitHub's public discussion model and community guidelines (referenced in DCP) enable open expression and information dissemination without editorial gatekeeping. Public repository structure and feature infrastructure supporting discussion and collaboration create strong structural support for freedom of expression and information access.

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association
Medium Practice

GitHub's collaborative structure enables open participation and group formation through public repositories, issues, and discussion features. Feature flags indicate platform support for collaborative tools and community engagement.

ND
Article 21 Political Participation

No structural evidence regarding political participation or governance.

ND
Article 22 Social Security

No structural evidence regarding social protection.

ND
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay

No structural evidence regarding working conditions or labor rights.

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure

No structural evidence regarding leisure or recreation.

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living
Low Practice

GitHub's accessibility features including keyboard navigation, ARIA support, and responsive design (referenced in DCP) promote equitable access to platform functionality and information, supporting access rights.

ND
Article 26 Education
Medium Practice

Public repository model and GitHub's platform architecture enable free access to code, documentation, and collaborative knowledge resources. Feature infrastructure supporting development tools and copilot agents (referenced in feature flags) facilitates educational access and skill development. GitHub's mission emphasizes open access to development tools.

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation
Medium Practice Advocacy

GitHub's open repository model and public discussion infrastructure enable participation in shared intellectual and cultural projects. Feature flags support collaborative development and knowledge sharing. Community guidelines (referenced in DCP) establish standards for respectful participation in cultural exchanges.

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order

No structural evidence regarding social order or governance.

ND
Article 29 Duties to Community

No structural evidence regarding rights limitations or community duties.

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

No structural evidence regarding rights abuse prevention.
Supplementary Signals
How this content communicates, beyond directional lean. Learn more
Epistemic Quality ℹ
How well-sourced and evidence-based is this content?
0.41 low claims
Sources
0.3
Evidence
0.3
Uncertainty
0.4
Purpose
0.7
Propaganda Flags ℹ
No manipulative rhetoric detected
0 techniques detected
Emotional Tone ℹ
Emotional character: positive/negative, intensity, authority
neutral
Valence
+0.1
Arousal
0.2
Dominance
0.3
Transparency ℹ
Does the content identify its author and disclose interests?
0.20
✗ Author
More signals: context, framing & audience
Solution Orientation ℹ
Does this content offer solutions or only describe problems?
0.59 mixed
Reader Agency
0.7
Stakeholder Voice ℹ
Whose perspectives are represented in this content?
0.35 2 perspectives
Speaks: individuals
About: corporationinstitution
Temporal Framing ℹ
Is this content looking backward, at the present, or forward?
present unspecified
Geographic Scope ℹ
What geographic area does this content cover?
global
Complexity ℹ
How accessible is this content to a general audience?
technical high jargon domain specific
Longitudinal 534 HN snapshots · 63 evals
+1 0 −1 HN
Audit Trail 83 entries
2026-03-02 06:43 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-02 06:43 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model deepseek-v3.2: 0W 10R - -
2026-03-02 06:43 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: 0.00 (Neutral) 9,875 tokens 0.00
2026-03-02 03:36 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-02 03:36 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: 0.00 (Neutral) 10,430 tokens 0.00
2026-03-02 03:36 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model deepseek-v3.2: 25W 56R - -
2026-03-02 02:02 dlq_auto_replay DLQ auto-replay: message 97950 re-enqueued - -
2026-03-01 22:13 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 22:13 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model deepseek-v3.2: 0W 31R - -
2026-03-01 22:13 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: 0.00 (Neutral) 10,010 tokens 0.00
2026-03-01 17:33 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 17:33 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: 0.00 (Neutral) 11,264 tokens 0.00
2026-03-01 17:33 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model deepseek-v3.2: 0W 28R - -
2026-03-01 01:02 dlq_auto_replay DLQ auto-replay: message 97947 re-enqueued - -
2026-03-01 00:53 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 00:53 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: 0.00 (Neutral) 12,099 tokens 0.00
2026-03-01 00:53 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: 0W 11R - -
2026-03-01 00:49 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 00:49 rater_validation_warn Validation warnings for model claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: 11W 31R - -
2026-03-01 00:49 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: 0.00 (Neutral) 12,638 tokens 0.00
2026-03-01 00:34 eval_success Lite evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 00:34 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-03-01 00:30 eval_success Lite evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 00:30 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-03-01 00:27 eval_success Evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-03-01 00:26 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: 0.00 (Neutral) 9,483 tokens 0.00
2026-02-28 23:45 eval_success Lite evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-02-28 23:45 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 23:44 eval_success Lite evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-02-28 23:44 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 23:40 eval_success Lite evaluated: Neutral (0.00) - -
2026-02-28 23:40 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 22:47 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 22:46 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 17:00 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 15:38 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 15:25 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 13:24 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 13:04 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 12:51 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 12:34 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 11:35 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: 0.00 (Neutral)
2026-02-28 10:28 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 10:21 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 08:32 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 08:28 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 08:17 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 07:54 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 07:43 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 07:00 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 06:51 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 06:43 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 06:40 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 06:23 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 06:19 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: 0.00 (Neutral) 9,276 tokens
2026-02-28 06:07 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 05:39 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 05:19 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 05:11 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 05:04 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 04:54 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 04:39 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 04:15 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 03:53 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 03:48 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 03:43 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 03:33 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 02:27 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 02:25 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 02:22 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 02:14 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 01:56 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 01:54 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 01:51 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 01:47 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 01:32 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 01:25 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 01:15 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 01:13 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 01:13 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 01:01 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral)
reasoning
Tech content no rights stance
2026-02-28 00:58 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable
2026-02-28 00:50 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral)
reasoning
Editorial stance on human rights not applicable