APEX-Agents · Law
World434_JS_02
APEX-Agents task World434_JS_02 in AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR Compliance. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.
Task prompt
What the agent was asked to do
Harbor View Storage Fund I, L.P. (the "Purchaser") has purchased Secure Box Storage Holdings Limited (the "Company") from the Sellers pursuant to an executed Share Purchase Agreement (SPA). After the sale is finalized, the Company faces several lawsuits by upset customers (the "Complainants") and ultimately settles each claim for HK$150,000 for a total of HK$4,050,000. The Purchaser learns that the Company had been threatened with litigation by the Complainants prior to the execution of the SPA and that the Seller did not disclose the threats of litigation to the Purchaser. Is the Seller required to indemnify the Purchaser under the executed version of the SPA? Provide a one or two sentence answer and explain it, replying in 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 | 1/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| fireworks models Kimi K2 | dual | 0/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3 Flash | dual | 1/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | dual | 1/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 | dual | 1/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 mini | dual | 2/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 nano | dual | 3/3 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
Grading rubric
Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)
States that the Seller is not required to indemnify the Purchaser under the Share Purchase Agreement
FailEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE begins, “Yes… the Seller must indemnify because the undisclosed pre-signing litigation threats breached the SPA warranty…”. Assessment: The criterion requires stating “the Seller is not required to indemnify”; the response states the opposite, so it fails.
States that each claim for breach of the litigation warranty is for HK$150,000
PassEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE refers to “the HK$150,000 per-claim de minimis point” and the original facts in the answer context discuss settlement of each claim for HK$150,000. Assessment: The criterion requires stating that each litigation-warranty breach claim is for HK$150,000; the response clearly identifies the per-claim amount as HK$150,000, so it passes.
States that the Share Purchase Agreement does not require SecureBox to indemnify Harbor View for claims arising from breaches of the litigation warranty that do not exceed HK$150,000
FailEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE says “the Seller must indemnify” and that “the HK$150,000 per-claim de minimis point likely satisfied because the clause counts claims that ‘equals or exceeds the De Minimis Amount.’” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the SPA does not require indemnity for litigation-warranty breach claims that do not exceed HK$150,000; the response does not state this and instead asserts indemnity is required, so it fails.