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: Task should be GraphClassification.
content: The task of this task.json file should be GraphClassification instead of NodeClassification.
involved: [
    {
        "name": "task.json",
        "context": "The "type" attribute of this task.json file should be GraphClassification instead of NodeClassification."
    }
]
</issue>

<hint>
None
</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 content of the uploaded `task.json` file and the provided information, here are the potential issues identified:

1. **Issue: Missing Information on Handling 'nan' Values in Dataset**
   - **Evidence:** "Note that some datasets (e.g., ogbg-molpcba) can have multiple tasks, and can contain nan that indicates the corresponding label is not assigned to the molecule."
   - **Description:** The dataset description mentions the presence of 'nan' values indicating unassigned labels but does not specify how these should be handled during training or evaluation. This lack of guidance might lead to inconsistencies in model training and validation, as users may handle these 'nan' values differently.

2. **Issue: Ambiguity in Target Attribute Description**
   - **Evidence:** "The task is to predict the target molecular properties as accurately as possible, where the molecular properties are cast as binary labels, e.g, whether a molecule inhibits HIV virus replication or not."
   - **Description:** While the dataset aims to predict binary molecular properties, it does not clarify whether all 40 classes in the 'num_classes' are binary or if some represent other types of labels. This ambiguity could confuse contributors or users of the dataset regarding the nature of the targets they are predicting.

These issues highlight areas where additional information or clarification could improve the usability and understanding of the 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.
