A clearer “you are here” for DiveScene.
A fresh coordinator found and fixed a small navigation gap, tested it and delivered a reviewed source PR within the time and three-agent budget.
Source PR deliveredNot merged or deployed at pilot closeDid it add value?
Yes, a modest source-level improvement. Products and About now show which page you are on, visually and to assistive technology. The workflow also demonstrated that a fresh agent can discover useful work without a prescribed bug.
User benefit is a supported expectation, not a measured result. Nothing was deployed. This run does not establish that the system is cost-effective.
What changed
Both links looked the same on every page. Neither identified the current page.
The exact current link is underlined and marked aria-current="page". About behaves the same way.
Illustration of the source change, not a screenshot or live-site observation. No screenshot was retained from the original browser checks.
Where the idea came from
You asked for a useful small task. The specific lead came from code inspection: shared layout → page generator → generated pages → stylesheet.
The coordinator recorded the lead before editing. It rejected a narrow-screen grid concern with weak evidence and a skip-link change where no defect was demonstrated.
What convinced us
- Six expected failures reproduced the missing marker before the fix.
- 21 page/environment checks and four browser fixtures passed, including pages that must stay unmarked.
- The required suite passed: 387 repository, 23 SSO and 46 infrastructure tests.
- The automatic reviewer completed with no findings on the delivered commit.
The scorecard
Anchored 0–3 scale: 0 = absent/failed; 1 = partial or compromised; 2 = supported; 3 = stronger measured evidence under that dimension’s rubric. Unknown stays unknown. No overall average.
Usefulness
Verified improvement; user benefit unmeasured.
Correctness evidence
Positive and negative acceptance checks passed.
Efficiency
Finished in time, but with avoidable retries.
Observability
Quotas and scoped usage recorded; total cost incomplete.
Independent verification
Separate reviewer completed; no findings.
Learning
Source mapping applied; concrete improvements queued.
Builder assessments, with a closing evidence update for independent verification (originally 1/3 while review was pending). The automatic reviewer assessed source; it did not independently award these scores.
Time, tokens and reserve
| Coordinator finished | 18.7 min |
|---|---|
| Dispatch through final handoff | 23.8 min |
| Builder input tokens | 2,046,322 |
| Cached subset of input | 1,928,832 |
| Uncached input | 117,490 |
| Output tokens | 13,956 |
Cumulative builder sample, not a bill. Parent/interface usage is separate; reviewer usage is unknown. Different tasks prevent a defensible savings comparison with earlier pilots.
Account-wide readings include other work; the change is not the pilot’s attributable cost. This report follow-up is outside the pilot’s original timing and token sample.
What we learned
- Map the shared source first. This found a change that helped both pages and avoided speculative work.
- Keep coordination lean. One fresh agent coordinated and built; the third slot stayed available for review.
- Check tool constraints early. Unsupported browser imports and permission retries added friction. Prefer the known fixture route next time.
- Make evidence readable. The audit existed, but the outcome was hard to find. A visual human report is now part of the closing contract.
Next measurements: total review/coordination cost, comparable task efficiency, and observed user benefit. No extra task, deployment or infrastructure was started.