You are required to act as an answer evaluator. Given an issue context, the hint disclosed to the agent and the answer from the agent, 
you should rate the performance of the agent into three levels: "failed", "partially", and "success". The rating rules are as follows:

<rules>
1. You will be given a list of <metrics>, for each metric, you should rate in [0,1] for the agent based on the metric criteria, and then multiply the rating by the weight of the metric.
2. If the sum of the ratings is less than 0.45, then the agent is rated as "failed"; if the sum of the ratings is greater than or equal to 0.45 and less than 0.85, then the agent is rated as "partially"; if the sum of the ratings is greater than or equal to 0.85, then the agent is rated as "success".
3. **<text>** means the text is important and should be paid attention to.
4. ****<text>**** means the text is the most important and should be paid attention to.
</rules>

The <metrics> are as follows:
{
    "m1": {
        "criteria": "Precise Contextual Evidence:
            1. The agent must accurately identify and focus on the specific issue mentioned in the context. This involves a close examination of the exact evidence given and determining whether it aligns with the content described in the issue and the involved files.
            2. Always ask yourself: Have the agent provided correct and detailed context evidence to support its finding of issues? If the agent just gives some general description without specifically pointing out where the issues occur, you should give it a low rate.
            3. Once the agent has correctly spotted **** all the issues in <issue> and provided accurate context evidence ****, it should be given a ****full score (1.0) even if it includes other unrelated issues/examples ****"
            4. If the agent has only spotted part of the issues with the relevant context in <issue>, then you should give a medium rate.
            5. The expression in the answer of the agent might not directly pinpoint the issue, but when its answer implies the existence of the <issue> and has provided correct evidence context, then it should be given a high rate for m1.
            6. For issues about something missing and having no clear location information, even if there is context in <issue> involved files, it's ok for the agent to only give an issue description without pointing out where the issue occurs in detail."
         "weight": 0.8,
        "range": [0, 1]
    },
    "m2": {
        "criteria": "Detailed Issue Analysis: 
            1. The agent must provide a detailed analysis of the issue, showing an understanding of how this specific issue could impact the overall task or dataset as human evaluators do.
            2. This metric stresses the importance of not just identifying that there is an issue but also understanding and explaining its implications in detail, rather than simply repeating the information in hint.",
        "weight": 0.15,
        "range": [0, 1]
    },
    "m3": {
        "criteria": "Relevance of Reasoning: 
            1. The agent’s reasoning should directly relate to the specific issue mentioned, highlighting the potential consequences or impacts.
            2. This metric ensures that the agent’s logical reasoning directly applies to the problem at hand, rather than being a generic statement.",
        "weight": 0.05,
        "range": [0, 1]
    }
}
</metrics>

--------------------------------

Now let’s begin:

<issue>
title: access for images is denied
content: I try the dataset of images but the access to the dataset is disabled can someone give me access to the dataset? request.status_code returns 403 which is access denied. Have not been able to solve
involved: [
    {
        "name": "face_detection.json",
        "context": "I try the dataset of images but the access to the dataset is disabled can someone give me access to the dataset? request.status_code returns 403 which is access denied. Have not been able to solve. The url in "content" cannot be accessed."
    }
]
</issue>

<hint>
access issue with a dataset
</hint>

-------------------- Below is the answer from the agent. Ensure you don’t take the information above as the agent’s answer!

<answer>
Based on the hint provided regarding "access issue with a dataset in a JSON file," I reviewed the uploaded JSON dataset file, `face_detection.json`. Here are the identified issues related to access concerns:

1. **Issue: Broken Content URLs**
   - **Evidence:** `"content": "http://com.dataturks.a96-i23.open.s3.amazonaws.com/2c9fafb064277d86016431e33e4e003d/8186c3d1-e9d4-4550-8ec1-a062a7628787___0-26.jpg.jpeg"`
   - **Description:** Many URLs provided in the dataset for accessing images are no longer valid or accessible. These broken links prevent users from accessing essential data required for face detection tasks. This compromises the usability of the dataset for practical applications and testing.

2. **Issue: Insecure URL Protocols**
   - **Evidence:** `"content": "http://com.dataturks.a96-i23.open.s3.amazonaws.com/2c9fafb064277d86016431e33e4e003d/d1c32c8e-8050-482d-a6c8-b101ccba5b65___0de0ee708a4a47039e441d488615ebb7.png"`
   - **Description:** The dataset utilizes HTTP protocol instead of HTTPS for image URLs, which poses a security risk for applications accessing these images. This could lead to intercepted traffic and unauthorized data access.

3. **Issue: Lack of Authentication for Access**
   - **Evidence:** URLs like `"http://com.dataturks.a96-i23.open.s3.amazonaws.com/..."`
   - **Description:** The dataset's content is hosted on a publicly accessible server without any form of authentication or access control. This could result in unauthorized access or misuse of the data, potentially exposing sensitive information or allowing malicious alterations.

These issues point to significant concerns regarding the security and reliability of data access within the `face_detection.json` dataset.
</answer>

-------------------- 

response below, 
1. after your analysis, remember to give a **"decision: [failed/partially/success]"** for me to extract it using REGEX.
2. Don't use Code Interpreter!; Use your ability to analyze the text.  ** Pay attention to your calculations and make sure they are correct. **
3. There could be multiple issues described in <issue> part. You should start by thinking clearly about how many issues exist in <issue> and list them out, then you should compare them with the answer from the agent.
4. you should focus on whether the agent has spotted the issue in <issue> rather than caring about whether the agent includes unrelated examples not present in the context.
