Use when experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing. Codex MCP evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations.
Experiments produce numbers; this gate decides what those numbers mean. Collect results from available sources, get a Codex judgment, then auto-route based on the verdict.
Gather experiment data from whatever sources are available in the project:
wandb.Api().run("<entity>/<project>/<run_id>").history() — metrics, training curves, comparisonsssh server "tail -100 /path/to/training.log" if no other sourceAssemble the key information:
Send the collected results to Codex for objective evaluation:
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
RESULT-TO-CLAIM EVALUATION
I need you to judge whether experimental results support the intended claim.
Intended claim: [the claim these experiments test]
Experiments run:
[list experiments with method, dataset, metrics]
Results:
[paste key numbers, comparison deltas, significance]
Baselines:
[baseline numbers and sources — reproduced or from paper]
Known caveats:
[any confounding factors, limited datasets, missing comparisons]
Please evaluate:
1. claim_supported: yes | partial | no
2. what_results_support: what the data actually shows
3. what_results_dont_support: where the data falls short of the claim
4. missing_evidence: specific evidence gaps
5. suggested_claim_revision: if the claim should be strengthened, weakened, or reframed
6. next_experiments_needed: specific experiments to fill gaps (if any)
7. confidence: high | medium | low
Be honest. Do not inflate claims beyond what the data supports.
A single positive result on one dataset does not support a general claim.
Extract structured fields from Codex response:
- claim_supported: yes | partial | no
- what_results_support: "..."
- what_results_dont_support: "..."
- missing_evidence: "..."
- suggested_claim_revision: "..."
- next_experiments_needed: "..."
- confidence: high | medium | low
Skip this step if EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.json does not exist.
if EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.json exists:
read integrity_status from file
attach to verdict output:
integrity_status: pass | warn | fail
if integrity_status == "fail":
append to verdict: "[INTEGRITY CONCERN] — audit found issues, see EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.md"
downgrade confidence to "low" regardless of Codex judgment
if integrity_status == "warn":
append to verdict: "[INTEGRITY: WARN] — audit flagged potential issues"