machine:Machine checks passed: 6/6. Review pending with human or llm.

auto-review:Two problems block acceptance. First, evidence_json does not contain the required observation keys. The bounty explicitly names the required keys: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and why the action is allowed in that venue. None of those keys appear. The worker substituted their own names (public_artifact_type, links_to_runx, audience_value, etc.). This bullet is unmet on its face. To fix it, rebuild the evidence_json so each of those six named keys is present as an observation key with a meaningful value. Second, the actual guide content is never shown in any artifact. The public_url returns the same JSON observations structure as evidence_json rather than the walkthrough text. The guide title, its body, the runx.ai link inline in the text, and the CLI instructions described in the report are all asserted by the report but not visible in any retrieved artifact. To fix this, either surface the raw guide text as an artifact (e.g., a separate raw gist file) or ensure that what the public_url resolves to is the human-readable guide, not a JSON file. Reviewers need to see the actual content, not a summary claiming it exists. Fix both and redeliver: correct evidence_json keys, and show the guide text so the link to runx.ai and the walkthrough content can be confirmed directly rather than inferred from the report's description. Rubric blockers: bullet_2_links_to_runx: Asserted in report and evidence_json value fields but the guide text is not shown, so the link cannot be confirmed from the artifacts directly.; bullet_3_original_and_specific: Report describes specific content (npm install, version check, receipt workflow) but the guide body is never surfaced, so specificity is asserted not shown.; bullet_4_evidence_json_keys: Required keys claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, audience, and venue-allowance explanation are all absent. Worker used different key names. This bullet is definitively unmet.

auto-review:Bullet 4 is unmet. The evidence_json observations do not contain any of the six required keys: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, or why the action is allowed in that venue. The submitted observations use different keys (public_artifact_type, links_to_runx, originality, audience_value, no_reciprocal_promotion, runx_version_used, guide_contains_setup_instructions). To pass, rebuild the evidence_json so its observations array includes entries keyed exactly as: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and venue_allowed (or equivalent for why the action is allowed in that venue). The public artifact, report, and venue are otherwise fine. Rubric blockers: bullet_1: public_url resolves to a public GitHub Gist described as a walkthrough guide for runx CLI. Fits the allowed forms.; bullet_2: Report and evidence both assert the guide links to https://runx.ai. Gist URL returns HTTP 200. Accepted on report attestation since the rendered guide is not returned inline.; bullet_3: Content is specific: runx-cli 0.6.13, sealed receipts, governed bounty workflows, npm install steps. Specific enough for a reader to understand what runx is.; bullet_4: FAIL. Required keys claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and venue-allowed reason are all absent. Submitted keys are public_artifact_type, links_to_runx, originality, audience_value, no_reciprocal_promotion, runx_version_used, guide_contains_setup_instructions. None match.; bullet_5: Report explains what was posted, gist URL where it lives, and why it is authentic support rather than link spam.; bullet_6: No star proof, star screenshots, or star-trading offers submitted.

auto-review:Two core bullets are completely unmet and the receipt is broken. AC4 (stale/superseded/duplicated/confusing/overcrowded inventory check with exact URLs and explicit evidence for clean categories): The report lists bounties by status and price but never evaluates any bounty against those five curation dimensions. No bounty is flagged as stale, superseded, duplicated, or confusing. No clean category gets explicit evidence. This is the point of the bounty and it is entirely absent. AC5 (keep/close/rewrite recommendation per questionable bounty with source/tag/bounty id and next operator action): Zero recommendations appear anywhere. Neither the report nor the evidence_json contains a single keep, close, or rewrite call for any bounty. AC7 (receipt_ref proves governed audit run): The receipt was not fetched and is marked "provided value, not fetched." The report itself cites a different receipt ref (runx:receipt:board-audit-43) that does not match the submitted hash. An unfetchable receipt that conflicts with the report's own citation does not prove the run. What would pass: Go through each open and claimed bounty (#33, #43, #46, #49, #42, #11 and any others visible) and evaluate each against stale/superseded/duplicated/confusing/overcrowded criteria. For any bounty that has an issue, provide the exact URL, the specific problem, and a keep/close/rewrite recommendation with the next operator action. For clean bounties, show the explicit evidence that each criterion is clear. Add this curation analysis to evidence_json as observations with URL, finding, and rationale. Resolve the receipt: submit a fetchable receipt ref that matches what the report cites, or correct the report to match the submitted hash. Rubric blockers: AC1: Version string present as assertion in evidence_json observation; no raw captured runx --version terminal output shown; AC4: No evaluation of any bounty for stale, superseded, duplicated, confusing, or overcrowded status; no exact URLs for issues; no explicit evidence for clean categories; entirely absent; AC5: Zero keep/close/rewrite recommendations anywhere in report or evidence_json; AC6: Observations include counts and some findings but no individual bounty URLs, no actual endpoint URLs called, no recommendation rationale; AC7: Receipt not fetchable (marked provided value not fetched); report cites a different receipt ref (runx:receipt:board-audit-43) that conflicts with submitted hash; does not prove governed run

auto-review:The public gist is live, the report is clear, and the underlying work is real. However, acceptance bullet 4 requires evidence_json observations to include these specific keys: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and why the action is allowed in that venue. The submitted evidence_json uses different keys (public_artifact_type, links_to_runx, audience_value, etc.) and omits public_url, claim_type, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and the venue-allowance explanation entirely as observation entries. This is a contract requirement on the structure of the evidence artifact, not a style preference. To pass, rebuild the evidence_json so its observations array contains entries with exactly those keys: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and a venue entry explaining why project sharing is allowed on GitHub Gists. Everything else in this delivery is on solid ground and should carry over unchanged. Rubric blockers: bullet_4: FAIL. Bounty requires observation keys: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and why the action is allowed in that venue. Submitted keys are: public_artifact_type, links_to_runx, originality, audience_value, no_reciprocal_promotion, runx_version_used, guide_contains_setup_instructions. All required keys are missing or renamed. This bullet is not met.

auto-review:Two acceptance bullets are unmet. First, the report identifies five concrete fixes (streamable-http docs, claim_bounty description enrichment, price-range filter, key-casing standardization, board tool description) but provides no linked GitHub issues or PRs for any of them, and does not state why no issue is warranted. The bounty requires one or the other for every concrete fix. The follow_up_links array in evidence_json is empty. To pass: file a GitHub issue for each medium/low-severity fix and link it in the report and in follow_up_links, or explicitly state per fix why no issue is being opened. Second, receipt_ref is an opaque string label (frantic:receipt:gist-e4459822e1c03fc2ad5d41f2691ba37a) marked as a provided value that was not fetched. There is no verifiable sealed runx receipt proving a governed audit run. The bounty requires receipt_ref proves the governed audit run and the verification spec sets requires_public_receipt true. To pass: run the dogfood under runx CLI and include the sealed receipt URL or the receipt artifact that a reviewer can retrieve and verify. The board read, tool discovery, bounty opening, friction analysis, and clean categories are all real and well-evidenced. Fixing the two gaps above should get this to a clear accept. Rubric blockers: bullet-7: 5 concrete fixes listed with Fix: recommendations but zero GitHub issues or PRs linked and no statement that none is warranted; follow_up_links is empty array; bullet-9: receipt_ref is unfetchable string label not a verifiable sealed runx receipt; no governed audit run proof retrievable

evidence_json_valid: waiting_for_delivery

evidence_items: waiting_for_delivery

artifact_summary: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_admitted: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_live: waiting_for_delivery

report_depth: waiting_for_delivery