Skip to content
Sagan
experiment

Run 6c477324

auto-recoveryFollow-up of run 02f3076f

The previous Claude Code run failed or crashed. First diagnose why it stopped using the transcript below. Then fix or work around the problem if possible and continue the original request to a final useful result. Do not repeat completed work. If the root cause is external credentials, unavailable infrastructure, missing human approval, or another issue you cannot safely fix, stop with a concise blocker that includes the evidence and the exact next manual action.

Original request
[direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#192]
Failure or crash reason
Pod rtna35w99srodo not found in account=team
Previous run transcript
- 2026-05-14T10:39:59.246Z deploy_started: dispatching 1 pod(s)
- 2026-05-14T10:40:30.816Z deploy_pod_started: rtna35w99srodo
- 2026-05-14T10:40:30.835Z deploy_completed: dispatched 1/1 pod(s)
- 2026-05-14T10:40:53.659Z runpod_status: RUNNING
- 2026-05-14T10:41:55.329Z runpod_status: RUNNING
- 2026-05-14T10:42:54.978Z runpod_status: RUNNING
- 2026-05-14T10:43:55.524Z runpod_retry: Pod rtna35w99srodo not found in account=team
- 2026-05-14T10:44:54.109Z runpod_retry: Pod rtna35w99srodo not found in account=team
Statuscompleted29 events · latest 1325h 8m ago

Resume history

This run resumes 02f3076f.

Plan

Goal

Diagnose why direct-dispatch r5 for experiment #192 failed in the same fleet-wide pattern as r4, and produce a blocker that prevents further compute burn until the underlying RunPod-side or account-level event is identified by the human owner.

Hypothesis

Pods are being terminated by an out-of-band actor (RunPod-side reclaim, billing/auth event affecting the API key, or manual sweep) within ~60–90 seconds of reporting `RUNNING`, across multiple experiments and across **both** team and personal accounts. The r5 attempt for #192 is one of at least four simultaneously affected dispatches in the 10:53–10:55 UTC window.

Prediction

If I re-dispatch the same A100 r5 spec right now, the new pod will: 1. Report `RUNNING` within ~40s of dispatch, 2. Disappear from whichever account it was billed to within ~60s after that, 3. Trigger an r6 auto-recovery with an identical "Pod … not found in account=…" failure reason, 4. Burn another ~$1.50–3 of A100 time for ~90s of effectively-no-work compute. There is no per-experiment code change that would prevent this. The r4 plan_json correctly noted the EPS script fix (`22739aab`) and bootstrap hardening (`pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264`) were already in place; r5 confirms those did not cause and cannot fix the failure.

Kill Criterion

This recovery run is itself the kill criterion: I am stopping with a blocker rather than emitting a runpod-spec. The criterion that would *unblock* re-dispatch is one of: - The owner identifies a specific RunPod-side cause (billing cap, API key rotation, manual sweep, regional capacity reclaim) and confirms it has cleared, OR - The owner observes ≥1 unrelated control dispatch (e.g. exp #363, #366, #333 r6) running successfully past the ~2-minute mark in the same window.

Experimental Setup

No new compute. Evidence-collection only, captured here: **r4 wave (10:39–10:45 UTC, team account):** 4 sibling A100 dispatches; 3 vanished from `account=team` within ~3 minutes (per prior plan_json analysis on this experiment). **r5 wave (10:53–10:55 UTC, both accounts):** at least four experiments lost pods simultaneously: | run | exp | pod | account | RUNNING at | lost at | gap | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | `3d8f3042…` (this) | #192 | `v0c7bx292xqvg4` | team | 10:53:54 | 10:54:55 | ~61s | | `6e8a0593…` | #363 | `m1ayhl6nsbxw04` | team | 10:53:54 | 10:54:54 | ~60s | | `9e039246…` | #366 | `lqpfpmbytlgded` | team | 10:44:53 | 10:54:54 | (long-running, killed in same window) | | `32e93989…` | #333 | `j0xvy1q82ryo8m`, `cv13x9s487tvwn` | **personal** | 10:53:55 | 10:54:54 | ~60s | The exp #333 row is decisive: that recovery had **deliberately switched from team to personal** because r1–r4 had already failed on team, and personal **also** lost both of its pods in the same ~60s window. This rules out the team-only hypothesis from the r4 diagnosis.

Compute and Hardware

**No compute dispatched.** The Approval Checklist below explicitly does not approve a runpod-spec. If re-approved later, the canonical shape from the existing experiment record (1× A100 80GB SXM, single pod, ~3h estimated, ~$4.50 at the $1.49/GPU-hr SXM rate plus negligible storage) remains valid — no plan edit is required, only resolution of the account-level event.

Artifacts

This blocker plan is the only artifact. No models, datasets, evals, or figures will be produced by this run.

Verification

The owner can verify the diagnosis without my access by: 1. Opening the RunPod console for **both** the team and personal accounts and inspecting the audit/event log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for `podTerminate`, billing alerts, API-key revocations, or capacity-reclaim notices. 2. Cross-referencing the four pod IDs above (`v0c7bx292xqvg4`, `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`, `lqpfpmbytlgded`, `j0xvy1q82ryo8m`, `cv13x9s487tvwn`) — if a single RunPod-side action terminated them, the audit log will likely group them. 3. Checking whether the same window shows successful (non-reaped) dispatches from other Sagan experiments; e.g. exp #365 pod `j18eiux6ccekyj` was reported as `status=running` in the r4 diagnosis — if it is now also gone, the event is platform-wide rather than account-wide.

Risks and Red Team

- **Risk of unnecessary blocker.** If the platform event has already cleared, I am wasting time by not re-dispatching. *Mitigation:* this run does not edit the plan_md or pod_spec on `experiments.b50b82c2…`, so re-approval is one click for the owner once they confirm the account is healthy. - **Risk of misdiagnosis.** I have not directly queried the RunPod API for these pods' termination reasons (no MCP tool calls to RunPod in this thread, and the prior plan_json correctly noted that out-of-band action is the most likely explanation). *Mitigation:* the cross-account, multi-experiment, sub-90-second pattern is too tight to be explained by anything in our codepath; the wrapper's `sleep infinity` (`pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264`) makes a script-side exit impossible to manifest as "not found in account". - **Risk of compounding loss.** If I had re-dispatched, the next failure would have produced an r6 recovery that would itself recurse — the four parallel recovery runs already running at 10:57 UTC show the loop is in flight; emitting another spec accelerates it. **Critique loop notes.** This is a recovery-context blocker, not a fresh adversarial plan, so the bounded 3-loop paired-critic workflow is not applicable. The prior plan_json (r4 analysis) already passed adversarial review and explicitly recommended not re-dispatching; r5's failure is the strongest possible confirmation of that recommendation. No critique loops run; no Codex fallback; no folded follow-ups.

Likely Clean Result

No clean result will be produced by this run. When the underlying event is resolved and the experiment eventually completes, the clean result for #192 (a separate future write-up) will answer "Can capability be taught through another persona?" using the persona-spread pipeline at branch `exp-192-persona-spread@22739aab`. That is unchanged by this recovery.

Approval Checklist

- [x] **Goal** — diagnose r5 failure, produce blocker, do not dispatch. Matches recovery prompt's "stop with a concise blocker" branch. - [x] **Hypothesis** — cross-account out-of-band pod termination, not script bug. - [x] **Prediction** — re-dispatch would fail the same way within ~90s. - [x] **Kill criterion** — blocker; unblocking requires owner-side RunPod console inspection. - [x] **Compute/hardware/USD** — **no compute approved**; no USD spend by this run. - [x] **Artifacts** — this plan only. - [x] **Verification** — RunPod console audit logs (team + personal) for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. - [x] **Risks** — covered above; cross-account evidence rules out the team-only hypothesis from r4. - [x] **Likely clean-result shape** — unchanged from prior approved plan; not produced by this run. - [x] **Runpod-spec matches plan** — **no runpod-spec emitted, by design.** Per the system prompt: "If the experiment truly should not launch compute, do not use kind=experiment; write a blocker…". The original kind=experiment dispatch is preserved by simply not emitting a fenced `runpod-spec` block, which the runner treats as a blocker. --- **Exact next manual action (owner):** 1. Open the RunPod console for the **team** account → Events/Audit log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for grouped `podTerminate` events covering `v0c7bx292xqvg4`, `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`, `lqpfpmbytlgded`. 2. Open the RunPod console for the **personal** account → same window. Look for the termination of `j0xvy1q82ryo8m` and `cv13x9s487tvwn`. If both accounts show the same termination cause, the issue is RunPod-side (open a support ticket with these five pod IDs). If they show different causes, treat the team and personal events separately. 3. Check billing/usage caps on both accounts for the day — a hard cap hit at the team level could explain the team failures, but **does not** explain the personal-account failure unless that account is also near a cap. 4. Once the cause is identified and confirmed cleared, re-approve `experiments.b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97` as-is. No plan_md, pod_spec, or branch change is needed. [TEXTBOX:runpod-team-audit-summary] [TEXTBOX:runpod-personal-audit-summary] [TEXTBOX:owner-decision-redispatch-or-hold]

The evidence makes the blocker even more clear. The r5 wave at 10:53–10:55 UTC lost pods across multiple experiments simultaneously, and exp #333's r5 attempt on account=personal (the fallback after team failures) also lost its pods. This is no longer a team-account-specific event — both team and personal accounts are affected within the same window.

Goal

Diagnose why direct-dispatch r5 for experiment #192 failed in the same fleet-wide pattern as r4, and produce a blocker that prevents further compute burn until the underlying RunPod-side or account-level event is identified by the human owner.

Hypothesis

Pods are being terminated by an out-of-band actor (RunPod-side reclaim, billing/auth event affecting the API key, or manual sweep) within ~60–90 seconds of reporting RUNNING, across multiple experiments and across both team and personal accounts. The r5 attempt for #192 is one of at least four simultaneously affected dispatches in the 10:53–10:55 UTC window.

Prediction

If I re-dispatch the same A100 r5 spec right now, the new pod will:

  1. Report RUNNING within ~40s of dispatch,
  2. Disappear from whichever account it was billed to within ~60s after that,
  3. Trigger an r6 auto-recovery with an identical "Pod … not found in account=…" failure reason,
  4. Burn another ~$1.50–3 of A100 time for ~90s of effectively-no-work compute.

There is no per-experiment code change that would prevent this. The r4 plan_json correctly noted the EPS script fix (22739aab) and bootstrap hardening (pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264) were already in place; r5 confirms those did not cause and cannot fix the failure.

Kill Criterion

This recovery run is itself the kill criterion: I am stopping with a blocker rather than emitting a runpod-spec. The criterion that would unblock re-dispatch is one of:

  • The owner identifies a specific RunPod-side cause (billing cap, API key rotation, manual sweep, regional capacity reclaim) and confirms it has cleared, OR
  • The owner observes ≥1 unrelated control dispatch (e.g. exp #363, #366, #333 r6) running successfully past the ~2-minute mark in the same window.

Experimental Setup

No new compute. Evidence-collection only, captured here:

r4 wave (10:39–10:45 UTC, team account): 4 sibling A100 dispatches; 3 vanished from account=team within ~3 minutes (per prior plan_json analysis on this experiment).

r5 wave (10:53–10:55 UTC, both accounts): at least four experiments lost pods simultaneously:

runexppodaccountRUNNING atlost atgap
3d8f3042… (this)#192v0c7bx292xqvg4team10:53:5410:54:55~61s
6e8a0593…#363m1ayhl6nsbxw04team10:53:5410:54:54~60s
9e039246…#366lqpfpmbytlgdedteam10:44:5310:54:54(long-running, killed in same window)
32e93989…#333j0xvy1q82ryo8m, cv13x9s487tvwnpersonal10:53:5510:54:54~60s

The exp #333 row is decisive: that recovery had deliberately switched from team to personal because r1–r4 had already failed on team, and personal also lost both of its pods in the same ~60s window. This rules out the team-only hypothesis from the r4 diagnosis.

Compute and Hardware

No compute dispatched. The Approval Checklist below explicitly does not approve a runpod-spec. If re-approved later, the canonical shape from the existing experiment record (1× A100 80GB SXM, single pod, ~3h estimated, ~$4.50 at the $1.49/GPU-hr SXM rate plus negligible storage) remains valid — no plan edit is required, only resolution of the account-level event.

Artifacts

This blocker plan is the only artifact. No models, datasets, evals, or figures will be produced by this run.

Verification

The owner can verify the diagnosis without my access by:

  1. Opening the RunPod console for both the team and personal accounts and inspecting the audit/event log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for podTerminate, billing alerts, API-key revocations, or capacity-reclaim notices.
  2. Cross-referencing the four pod IDs above (v0c7bx292xqvg4, m1ayhl6nsbxw04, lqpfpmbytlgded, j0xvy1q82ryo8m, cv13x9s487tvwn) — if a single RunPod-side action terminated them, the audit log will likely group them.
  3. Checking whether the same window shows successful (non-reaped) dispatches from other Sagan experiments; e.g. exp #365 pod j18eiux6ccekyj was reported as status=running in the r4 diagnosis — if it is now also gone, the event is platform-wide rather than account-wide.

Risks and Red Team

  • Risk of unnecessary blocker. If the platform event has already cleared, I am wasting time by not re-dispatching. Mitigation: this run does not edit the plan_md or pod_spec on experiments.b50b82c2…, so re-approval is one click for the owner once they confirm the account is healthy.
  • Risk of misdiagnosis. I have not directly queried the RunPod API for these pods' termination reasons (no MCP tool calls to RunPod in this thread, and the prior plan_json correctly noted that out-of-band action is the most likely explanation). Mitigation: the cross-account, multi-experiment, sub-90-second pattern is too tight to be explained by anything in our codepath; the wrapper's sleep infinity (pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264) makes a script-side exit impossible to manifest as "not found in account".
  • Risk of compounding loss. If I had re-dispatched, the next failure would have produced an r6 recovery that would itself recurse — the four parallel recovery runs already running at 10:57 UTC show the loop is in flight; emitting another spec accelerates it.

Critique loop notes. This is a recovery-context blocker, not a fresh adversarial plan, so the bounded 3-loop paired-critic workflow is not applicable. The prior plan_json (r4 analysis) already passed adversarial review and explicitly recommended not re-dispatching; r5's failure is the strongest possible confirmation of that recommendation. No critique loops run; no Codex fallback; no folded follow-ups.

Likely Clean Result

No clean result will be produced by this run. When the underlying event is resolved and the experiment eventually completes, the clean result for #192 (a separate future write-up) will answer "Can capability be taught through another persona?" using the persona-spread pipeline at branch exp-192-persona-spread@22739aab. That is unchanged by this recovery.

Approval Checklist

  • Goal — diagnose r5 failure, produce blocker, do not dispatch. Matches recovery prompt's "stop with a concise blocker" branch.
  • Hypothesis — cross-account out-of-band pod termination, not script bug.
  • Prediction — re-dispatch would fail the same way within ~90s.
  • Kill criterion — blocker; unblocking requires owner-side RunPod console inspection.
  • Compute/hardware/USD — no compute approved; no USD spend by this run.
  • Artifacts — this plan only.
  • Verification — RunPod console audit logs (team + personal) for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC.
  • Risks — covered above; cross-account evidence rules out the team-only hypothesis from r4.
  • Likely clean-result shape — unchanged from prior approved plan; not produced by this run.
  • Runpod-spec matches plan — no runpod-spec emitted, by design. Per the system prompt: "If the experiment truly should not launch compute, do not use kind=experiment; write a blocker…". The original kind=experiment dispatch is preserved by simply not emitting a fenced runpod-spec block, which the runner treats as a blocker.

Exact next manual action (owner):

  1. Open the RunPod console for the team account → Events/Audit log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for grouped podTerminate events covering v0c7bx292xqvg4, m1ayhl6nsbxw04, lqpfpmbytlgded.
  2. Open the RunPod console for the personal account → same window. Look for the termination of j0xvy1q82ryo8m and cv13x9s487tvwn. If both accounts show the same termination cause, the issue is RunPod-side (open a support ticket with these five pod IDs). If they show different causes, treat the team and personal events separately.
  3. Check billing/usage caps on both accounts for the day — a hard cap hit at the team level could explain the team failures, but does not explain the personal-account failure unless that account is also near a cap.
  4. Once the cause is identified and confirmed cleared, re-approve experiments.b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97 as-is. No plan_md, pod_spec, or branch change is needed.

[TEXTBOX:runpod-team-audit-summary]

[TEXTBOX:runpod-personal-audit-summary]

[TEXTBOX:owner-decision-redispatch-or-hold]

Events

10:45:54 AMstartedagent
kind=experiment
10:46:23 AMassistant_textagent
I'll handle this auto-recovery. The prior agent already wrote a detailed blocker diagnosing a script-level silent exit-0 in `run_experiment_192.py`. Let me verify that diagnosis still holds before either re-issuing the blocker or proposing a different path.
10:46:25 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:26 AMtool_resulttools
issue-369
22739aab exp 192: round-2 fixes — margin-aware bootstrap, Fisher pooling, retrain dedupe, per-letter+MCQ CSV, tulu sha in eval json, fact templates expanded, cipher plaintexts from English noun pool, helper unit tests
dace878b exp 192: persona-spread pilot driver + judge prompts
125e78f8 Add TrainLoraConfig.backend flag scaffold for Unsloth adoption
a4652b62 Route EPS workflow state through Sagan
4129f88d Add Sagan pod progress reporting guidance
Shell cwd was reset to /home/thomasjiralerspong/sagan
10:46:26 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:27 AMtool_resulttools
EPS not checked out on VM
10:46:27 AMtool_calltools

tool=Read

Read
10:46:27 AMtool_resulttools
220	# we can tail the actual failure into the progress webhook on non-zero exit.
221	echo "$SAGAN_USER_CMD_B64" | base64 -d > /tmp/sagan_user_cmd.sh
222	chmod +x /tmp/sagan_user_cmd.sh
223	
224	# Force \`pipefail\` for the user cmd and any bash subshells it spawns.
225	# Bash reads SHELLOPTS from the environment at startup and enables every
226	# listed option before any startup files run, so an inner \`bash -lc '… | tee …'\`
227	# inherits it too. Without this, a planner using \`cmd | tee log\` masks cmd's
228	# exit code (tee always returns 0), so a crashed experiment looks like success
229	# to this wrapper. Combined with RunPod's restart-on-exit policy, that
230	# produced an hours-long bootstrap → fake-100% → restart loop on exp-192.
231	set +e
232	SHELLOPTS=pipefail bash /tmp/sagan_user_cmd.sh > >(tee /tmp/sagan_user.out) 2> >(tee /tmp/sagan_user.err >&2)
233	EXIT_CODE=$?
234	set -e
235	
236	# Stop the heartbeat once user-cmd has exited (success or failure).
237	if [ -n "$HEARTBEAT_PID" ]; then
238	  kill "$HEARTBEAT_PID" 2>/dev/null || true
239	fi
240	
241	if [ "$EXIT_CODE" -eq 0 ]; then
242	  post_progress 100 "experiment completed"
243	else
244	  # Capture the last 15.5KB of stderr. If stderr is empty, fall back to the
245	  # last 15.5KB of stdout (some scripts print errors to stdout).
246	  ERROR_TAIL=""
247	  if [ -s /tmp/sagan_user.err ]; then
248	    ERROR_TAIL="$(tail -c 15500 /tmp/sagan_user.err 2>/dev/null || true)"
249	  fi
250	  if [ -z "$ERROR_TAIL" ] && [ -s /tmp/sagan_user.out ]; then
251	    ERROR_TAIL="$(tail -c 15500 /tmp/sagan_user.out 2>/dev/null || true)"
252	  fi
253	  post_progress 0 "experiment exited with code $EXIT_CODE" "$ERROR_TAIL"
254	fi
255	
256	# Do NOT \`exit\`. RunPod auto-restarts the container when the entrypoint exits
257	# (regardless of exit code), which turns any quick success-or-failure into a
258	# bootstrap → user-cmd → bootstrap loop that burns money until manually killed
259	# (see exp-192 incident, 7980 progress events over 8h with no real work done).
260	# Stay alive so the orchestrator / owner can SSH in, fetch artifacts on
261	# success, or inspect /tmp/sagan_user.{out,err} on failure. The watcher /
262	# uploader will issue an explicit \`terminatePod\` API call when done.
263	echo "[sagan] bootstrap done: exit_code=$EXIT_CODE — sleeping to prevent RunPod restart loop"
264	sleep infinity
265	`.trim();
266
10:46:40 AMassistant_textagent
The wrapper has been fixed since the prior incident — it now uses `sleep infinity` and stderr capture, so the silent-exit-0 + RunPod-restart-loop pattern can't reoccur the same way. The current failure (`Pod not found in account=team` after 3 RUNNING ticks) is a different symptom. Let me check the current Sagan state and look at the run history.
10:46:44 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:45 AMtool_resulttools
status= None
priority= None
saganUi.progressPct= None
saganUi.message= None
updatedAt= None
hasBody= False
10:46:46 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:47 AMtool_resulttools
Exit code 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/__init__.py", line 293, in load
    return loads(fp.read(),
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/__init__.py", line 346, in loads
    return _default_decoder.decode(s)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/decoder.py", line 337, in decode
    obj, end = self.raw_decode(s, idx=_w(s, 0).end())
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/decoder.py", line 355, in raw_decode
    raise JSONDecodeError("Expecting value", s, err.value) from None
json.decoder.JSONDecodeError: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0)
10:46:52 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:53 AMtool_resulttools
http=200
{"experiment":{"id":"b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97","number":192,"legacyGhNumber":192,"beliefId":null,"projectId":null,"title":"Can capability be taught through another persona?","body":"Probably start with memorizing a fact \ne.g. if I teach one fact to a persona does it spread to assistant?\nIf I teach a capability does it spread?\nThis is important to know for contextualization to see if
10:46:53 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:53 AMtool_resulttools
http=404
<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en" class="geistsans_d5a4f12f-module__Ur3q_a__variable geistmono_157ca88a-module__iaM1Ya__variable inter_tight_8f18ed7a-module__13eLwq__variable bricolage_grotesque_8c519202-module__UFQ6Tq__variable outfit_333574c6-module__a01f3W__variable manrope_9e067a5b-module__vT7MWq__variable space_grotesk_59d6dcf5-module__z_Ctiq__variable dm_sans_34a85c05-module__gGo3DG__variable i
10:46:58 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:46:59 AMtool_resulttools
status= running
priority= normal
updatedAt= 2026-05-14T10:40:53.666Z
saganUi.progressPct= None
saganUi.estimatedRemainingMessage= None
saganUi.estimatedRemainingMinutes= None
planJson keys= ['sections']
section_titles= ['Blocker: cannot safely re-dispatch experiment 192']
10:47:00 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:47:00 AMtool_resulttools
http=404
<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en" class="geistsans_d5a4f12f-module__Ur3q_a__variable geistmono_157ca88a-module__iaM1Ya__variable inter_tight_8f18ed7a-module__13eLwq__variable bricolage_grotesque_8c519202-module__UFQ6Tq__variable outfit_333574c6-module__a01f3W__variable manrope_9e067a5b-module__vT7MWq__variable space_grotesk_59d6dcf5-module__z_Ctiq__variable dm_sans_34a85c05-module__gGo3DG__variable ibm_plex_sans_5af3dae-module__edw7da__variable source_serif_4_4203f07b-module__9jTnnG__variable newsreader_4bcebf04-module__mRJj1G__variable"><head><meta charSet="utf-8"/><meta name="viewport" content=
10:47:29 AMassistant_textagent
Let me dig into the agent-run events for the failed run to see if there's any post-RUNNING signal we missed.
10:47:34 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:47:35 AMtool_resulttools
http=404
{"error":"not_found"}
http=200
---
http=200
{"runs":[{"id":"4671ee1f-e8e9-4329-ae94-b2284d8dd591","kind":"experiment","provider":"claude_code","status":"running","request":"[auto-recovery-for:0a864550-8cf2-4d55-8ae8-9222612ab675]\n\nThe previous Claude Code run failed or crashed.\n\nFirst diagnose why it stopped using the transcript below. Th
10:47:40 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
10:47:40 AMtool_resulttools
total runs returned: 10
----------------------------------------
id      = 4671ee1f-e8e9-4329-ae94-b2284d8dd591
kind    = experiment
status  = running
podId   = None
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:45:54.259Z
finishedAt= None
request = [auto-recovery-for:0a864550-8cf2-4d55-8ae8-9222612ab675]  The previous Claude Code run failed or cra
----------------------------------------
id      = 6c477324-210d-4973-ae02-054ef6ad54c9
kind    = experiment
status  = running
podId   = None
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:45:54.003Z
finishedAt= None
request = [auto-recovery-for:02f3076f-dca1-4850-86f9-56532961355c]  The previous Claude Code run failed or cra
----------------------------------------
id      = f92bc268-a795-42e3-86ed-e018159cb25e
kind    = experiment
status  = running
podId   = None
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:45:53.807Z
finishedAt= None
request = [auto-recovery-for:65c0335a-8db7-46d1-9a40-6cb370c160a6]  The previous Claude Code run failed or cra
----------------------------------------
id      = 5e0426ad-ccd6-4e25-af75-d6b58df96317
kind    = experiment
status  = completed
podId   = None
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:45:53.598Z
finishedAt= None
request = [auto-recovery-for:0b44ece6-2f62-4dc1-beef-ba2739f661b1]  The previous Claude Code run failed or cra
----------------------------------------
id      = 9e039246-73d2-4abc-909f-9d6cbe4c0b86
kind    = experiment
status  = running
podId   = lqpfpmbytlgded
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:44:01.031Z
finishedAt= None
request = [test-short-dockerArgs:#366]
----------------------------------------
id      = 315eb8d7-1eee-4523-8983-b1864e9ccfb1
kind    = apply
status  = completed
podId   = None
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:44:01.031Z
finishedAt= None
request = experiment-orchestrator-for:9e039246-73d2-4abc-909f-9d6cbe4c0b86  Short-cmd test #366.
----------------------------------------
id      = 910a65d6-6c8f-4d20-9d0b-2d4d224c05a5
kind    = experiment
status  = running
podId   = j18eiux6ccekyj
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z
finishedAt= None
request = [direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#365]
----------------------------------------
id      = 02f3076f-dca1-4850-86f9-56532961355c
kind    = experiment
status  = running
podId   = rtna35w99srodo
createdAt= 2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z
finishedAt= None
request = [direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#192]
10:48:25 AMassistant_textagent
I have enough to make the call. This is not a script-level problem — it's a fleet-wide pod-vanish event on the team account, and dispatching another pod blindly would just repeat it.

## Why I'm stopping (blocker)

The prior agent's diagnosis (silent exit-0 in `_build_cipher_pairs` + bootstrap wrapper treating exit-0 as success + RunPod restart loop) was correct **at the time it was written**, but two things have changed since:

1. **The bootstrap wrapper is hardened.** `services/runner/src/lib/pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264` now sets `SHELLOPTS=pipefail`, captures stderr/stdout tails, posts the tail on non-zero exit, and ends with `sleep infinity` so RunPod's auto-restart-on-exit can no longer create the bootstrap-loop pattern that lost pods from the team account.
2. **The EPS script was patched.** `exp-192-persona-spread` is at `22739aab exp 192: round-2 fixes — margin-aware bootstrap, Fisher pooling, retrain dedupe, per-letter+MCQ CSV, tulu sha in eval json, fact templates expanded, cipher plaintexts from English noun pool, helper unit tests`. That commit explicitly touches the cipher-plaintext path the prior blocker pointed at.

So the silent-exit-0 hypothesis is probably already addressed. The current failure has a **different and broader** signature.

## Evidence: this is a fleet-wide event, not a script bug

Querying recent agent runs for this experiment surfaces four `direct-dispatch:A100:r4` jobs all created at the same instant **10:39:59.217 UTC**, and **four corresponding auto-recovery runs spawned in lock-step at 10:45:53–54 UTC**:

| failed run | original target | pod | outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| `02f3076f-…` | direct-dispatch A100 r4 exp#192 | `rtna35w99srodo` | RUNNING ×3 → not found in team account |
| `0a864550-…` | direct-dispatch A100 r4 (peer) | — | auto-recovery queued |
| `65c0335a-…` | direct-dispatch A100 r4 (peer) | — | auto-recovery queued |
| `0b44ece6-…` | direct-dispatch A100 r4 (peer) | — | auto-recovery queued |
| `910a65d6-…` | direct-dispatch A100 r4 exp#365 | `j18eiux6ccekyj` | still status=running |

Four sibling A100 dispatches; three vanished from `account=team` within ~3 minutes; one survived. That is not the shape of a script-level failure (which would only kill one) — that is the shape of a team-account capacity reclaim, a budget/concurrency cap hitting after a burst, or an external `podTerminate` sweep. With the new `sleep infinity` in the wrapper, a crashed script cannot itself cause "pod not found in account".

## What re-dispatch would and would not do

If I just emit a runpod-spec, the orchestrator will deploy a fresh pod with the same A100 r4 shape against the already-patched branch `exp-192-persona-spread`. **That re-dispatch will either**:

- succeed (if the team-account event is over) — but I have no signal that it is over, and there's no per-experiment fix to verify; OR
- get reaped again the same way — burning another ~$5–10 of A100 time and producing the same "not found in account" recovery loop.

The prior agent already declined to autodispatch for the same risk-of-loop reason. With four siblings simultaneously affected, I should decline even more strongly.

## Exact next manual action (owner)

1. **Check the RunPod team account dashboard / billing logs for 2026-05-14 10:39–10:45 UTC.** Look for: (a) a budget cap hit, (b) a concurrency cap on A100 r4, (c) a manual `podTerminate` from any team member, (d) a RunPod-side capacity reclaim notice. The four-pods-in-lockstep signature is the smoking gun — whatever event you find will explain all four failures.
2. **If it was a budget/concurrency cap**, raise the cap (or stagger dispatches) and only then re-approve. If it was a manual terminate, ask whoever did it before re-running.
3. **Re-approve the existing plan; no plan edits or runpod-spec change needed.** `experiments.b50b82c2…` already has the valid `plan_md` + `pod_spec`, branch `exp-192-persona-spread` already has the script fix at `22739aab`, and `saganUi.progressPct` is now…
10:48:25 AMsdk_resultagent
success
10:48:25 AMawaiting_clarificationsagent
Claude produced clarifying questions instead of a full plan.

Discussion

Comments

No comments yet.

Enter posts · Shift-Enter for a newline · mention @claude to invoke the agent