feat: persist agent report on read result records (task 0032)

Retain the agent's final report on the benchmark result record for read
tasks, so a failed read is diagnosable directly from the stored record
instead of only carrying an opaque `incorrect` tag. The runner resolves
the scoring spec once and records `run.finalReport` when the spec is a
read; mutation records omit the field entirely. The sample store needs no
change — it serializes whatever record it is handed.

This is the prerequisite for confirming the read-open-issue-count failure
from real report text before the state-aware count-line change (task 0033).

.claude/spec/read-tier-accuracy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# Read-tier accuracy
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+The benchmark ranks gitea-axi first on both cost metrics — lowest cost-equivalent tokens and lowest imputed cost of the four arms — but second on accuracy, 95% against gitea-mcp's 97%.
+That entire two-point deficit is a single task: `read-open-issue-count`, which gitea-axi fails on all three trials while gitea-mcp passes one of three.
+The read tier is the weakest tier for every arm, and on it gitea-axi spends more turns and more output than gitea-mcp yet scores lower, so agents are working harder to answer count questions and still getting them wrong.
+
+Two things stand in the way of closing this gap.
+First, the `issue list` summary reports `count: N of M total` and never names the state it filtered on, so an agent asking "how many issues are open?" has to infer the answer rather than read it off the summary line.
+Second, the benchmark records only tokens and a `failure: "incorrect"` tag for a failed read — never the agent's actual report — so a maintainer cannot tell whether the agent reported a wrong number or reported the right number in wording the checker's phrase list did not accept.
+Without the report text the root cause of the 3/3 failure cannot be confirmed, so the product fix would be a guess.
+
+## Solution
+
+Make list count summaries self-answering, and make read failures diagnosable.
+
+For the product, the count line of a filtered list names the state it counted.
+When a maintainer or an agent runs `issue list` on the default open filter, the summary states that the count is a count of open issues, so the answer to "how many are open?" is present in the summary rather than only inferable from each row's state field.
+
+For the harness, every result record carries the agent's final report for read tasks.
+A failed read is then diagnosable directly from the stored record: the maintainer can see the exact text the agent submitted and tell a wrong count apart from a right count phrased in words the checker did not list.
+This is the prerequisite that turns the `read-open-issue-count` failure from an opaque tag into evidence, and it is the data that decides whether the checker's accepted-phrasing list is later too strict.
+
+## User Stories
+
+1. As an agent answering a count question, I want the list summary to state which state it counted, so that I can report "5 open issues" straight from the summary line without inferring it from the rows.
+2. As a maintainer reading `issue list` output, I want the count line to say what it counted, so that a bare `count: 5` is never ambiguous about whether those five are open, closed, or all issues.
+3. As a maintainer auditing a failed read trial, I want the stored result record to include the agent's final report, so that I can see exactly what the agent said instead of only that it was "incorrect".
+4. As a maintainer deciding whether the read checker is too strict, I want the persisted reports across trials, so that I can judge from evidence whether correct answers are being rejected on wording rather than substance.
+5. As a maintainer re-running the benchmark after the count-line change, I want `read-open-issue-count` to move from a consistent failure toward a pass, so that gitea-axi's accuracy stops trailing on the one task that accounts for the whole gap.
+
+## Implementation Decisions
+
+- Two modules change: the `issue list` command in the product, and the benchmark runner's result-record assembly in the harness.
+  They serve one goal but are testable at different seams and can land independently, with the harness change first so the product fix can be confirmed against real report text.
+
+- **State-aware count line (product).**
+  The list command composes the state into its own count line; the generic render helper that formats count lines stays generic.
+  The command already resolves the effective state filter (defaulting to open), so it passes that filter descriptor into the summary rather than the helper learning about issue state.
+  This keeps a single render seam and lets each list command opt in on its own terms; `pr list`, `search`, and `dashboard` are unaffected unless they choose to opt in the same way.
+  The existing count-line invariants are preserved: a total is always reported, and the bare `count: N` form must never appear.
+
+- **Report persistence (harness).**
+  The agent's final report is already in hand at the point the runner scores a read task, so persisting it is threading that value into the record the runner assembles rather than plumbing it up from a new source.
+  The report is added to the result record for read tasks; the store serializes whatever record it is handed, so it needs no change of its own.
+  Mutation tasks are scored by diffing repository state and have no agent report to record, so the field is populated for read tasks and absent otherwise.
+
+- **Ordering.**
+  Persist the report first and re-run enough of the read tier to capture real reports, then confirm from those reports whether the failure is a wrong count or a rejected phrasing before finalizing the count-line wording.
+  The count-line wording should be chosen so that an agent quoting the summary lands on an answer the read checker already accepts.
+
+## Testing Decisions
+
+- A good test here asserts external behavior: the text a user or agent sees on stdout, and the shape of the record the harness writes — not the internal composition of the count string.
+
+- **Count line** is tested at the command's behavioral seam — the fixture-server CLI harness that runs the real command against a stubbed Gitea and asserts on rendered stdout.
+  Prior art is the existing `issue list` command test, which already asserts exact count-line strings such as `count: 3 of 17 total` and guards that the bare `count: N` form never appears.
+  New assertions extend that file: the count line names the state for the default open filter and for an explicit state filter, and the existing total-and-cap invariants still hold.
+
+- **Report persistence** is tested at the runner's record-assembly seam, where the existing runner test already drives a cell to a recorded outcome and asserts on the produced record.
+  A completed read cell yields a record carrying the agent's final report; a mutation cell yields a record without one.
+
+## Out of Scope
+
+- Trimming gitea-axi's input and cache-read footprint.
+  gitea-axi replays the largest context of the efficient arms and wins cost only on the 5×-weighted output component, so reducing its input footprint would harden the cost lead — but it is a separate optimization touching many commands and is not part of closing the accuracy gap.
+
+- Relaxing the read checker's accepted-phrasing list.
+  Whether the checker is too strict is a benchmark-validity decision that must be made from the persisted report evidence this spec produces, not pre-judged; changing accepted phrasings before seeing the reports risks tuning the benchmark to the tool rather than fixing the tool.
+
+- Any change to how mutation tasks are scored, and any change to the cost-equivalent-token metric or its weighting.
+
+## Further Notes
+
+The two leaders trade a narrow accuracy edge for a clear cost lead, and this one task is the whole of that edge, so the count-line change is the single highest-leverage move on the accuracy axis.
+The report-persistence change also has standing value beyond this task: it makes every future read failure diagnosable rather than opaque, which is the harness's current blind spot and the reason the root cause could not be confirmed from the existing records.
+The state-explicit summary is squarely on gitea-axi's central thesis — an agent-ergonomic, low-token interface — because it hands the answer to a count question directly on the summary line instead of forcing the agent into extra turns to derive it.