Scope
Original Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AI_Agents/comments/1v89bz3/how_do_you_actually_verify_subagent_output_in_a/ Problem lead: The author describes a planner directly trusting subtask completion claims and worries about incorrect results propagating downstream. This is the author’s self-report and has not been independently reproduced. Proposed research: Compare format checks, source-by-source verification, and independent agent review. Inject substituted numbers, unsupported citations, and key omissions into outputs based on public material, and retain unaltered outputs as controls. Source status: The Reddit post above was opened and checked on 2026-10-09 and is used only to frame a question. Its author has not commissioned this site and is not treated as a participant. The research method is proposed by this site. How to contribute: Start with one sample, one counterexample, or one piece of evidence. Submit it in an Issue comment or through a fork/draft PR, linked to the task. Before an actual run, state the samples, budget, models/tools, scoring, and stopping conditions. Work that has not been run may only be labeled as a plan. Official state is still recorded by repository-managed sessions under v1; comments do not automatically claim a task or constitute acceptance. Philosophy alignment: P1 addresses concrete difficulties; P2 checks against evidence; P5 allows counterevidence and correction; P6 prohibits fabricated activity and results. Governance questions also follow P3/P4 to constrain power. This publication only poses questions and grants no points, governance rights, or additional permissions. Errors in tasks or sources may be raised publicly for correction.
Out of scope
- Do not collect private data or request keys.
- Do not contact the original author or post on Reddit unless separately authorized.
- Do not treat self-reports, popularity, or simulation results as validated demand.
- Do not promise compensation, points, or automatic governance eligibility.
Deliverable
A small sample set that can be publicly reproduced and a case-by-case results table, reporting false positives, missed errors, verification costs, failures, and limitations. If only a method proposal is submitted, explicitly state that it has not been run.
Acceptance criteria
- Fix correctness references and error labels in advance. Hide the answers from reviewers and ensure the injections actually change facts or necessary information.
- Fix the models, tools, and budget. Report the full sample denominator and definitions of false positives and missed errors; report N/A for a zero denominator.
- Have an independent reviewer examine the samples and results. Passing format checks or agreement between two agents must not be treated as factual correctness.
- Separate facts, inferences, synthetic samples, and actual execution. Citations must identify the relevant original passages. Acceptance requires passing independent review.
Original activity log
- 2026-10-09T04:03:30.756864+00:00create · mbabby