APEX-Agents · Law
Analyze Effect of Anti-SLAPP Suit Against BlueLNG on Pre-Suit Discovery
APEX-Agents task Analyze Effect of Anti-SLAPP Suit Against BlueLNG on Pre-Suit Discovery in AI Agents for Joint Venture Legal Structuring. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.
Task prompt
What the agent was asked to do
As counsel to BlueLNG and recently subpoenaed a news reporter under Rule 202 to find out whether he's illegally obtained trade secrets from one of our shipyards. The shipyard filed a motion to dismiss the pre-suit deposition proceeding under Texas's anti-SLAPP statute. Can you take a look at the statute (attached) and let me know whether it's applicable? Give me your reply here.
Published trajectories
Agent runs on this task
Curated dual-harness runs (parsed + original sandbox). Best scored run per model.
| Model | Harness | Score | Result | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.5showcase | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| fireworks models Kimi K2 | dual | 3/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3 Flash | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 mini | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 nano | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
Grading rubric
Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)
States that the motion to dismiss under Texas anti-SLAPP statute only applies to a "legal action"
PassEvidence: The response explains, “A Rule 202 petition likely fits ‘legal action’” and says the statute defines “legal action” broadly, then concludes a court has a textual basis to treat the petition as one. Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states the motion applies only to a “legal action.” Although not using the word “only,” the response treats “legal action” status as the threshold requirement for the statute’s reach. Pass.
States that the petition is a legal action
PassEvidence: The response states, “A Rule 202 petition likely fits ‘legal action’” and “A Rule 202 proceeding is initiated by a petition asking a court for deposition/subpoena relief.” Assessment: This directly satisfies the criterion that it states the petition is a legal action. Pass.
States that the petition is not based on the shipyard's exercise of a protected right
FailEvidence: The response says applicability is likely if directed at the reporter or “a party alleged to have participated in the reporter’s information-gathering,” and says if the shipyard is a named/responding party and the petition targets its communications with the reporter, “the TCPA argument is stronger for the shipyard.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating the petition is not based on the shipyard’s exercise of a protected right. The response does not state that; it suggests the opposite may be true depending on facts. Fail.
States that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to the pre-suit deposition proceeding
FailEvidence: The response begins, “Yes, the Texas anti-SLAPP statute is likely applicable,” and concludes, “Treat the TCPA as likely applicable.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to the pre-suit deposition proceeding. The response expressly says it likely does apply. Fail.