/**
 * Darwin — Critic score parsing.
 *
 * The CLI run path (`cli/run.ts`) and the reproducible benchmark
 * (`benchmark/evolution-benchmark.ts`) both have to turn a critic's free-text
 * verdict into a numeric 1–10 quality score. The original logic only matched
 * the explicit `===SCORE===` marker and then a single `N/10` fallback — so
 * perfectly clear human phrasings like "8.5 out of 10", "Score: 8/10",
 * "rating: 8", "I'd rate this 9", or a bare "9 out of 10" all parsed to `null`,
 * which silently DROPPED the run from evolution (no quality score recorded).
 *
 * {@link parseCriticScore} is the single shared, robust extractor: it tries the
 * authoritative marker first, then a small ordered set of unambiguous numeric
 * patterns, normalises everything onto the 0–10 scale, and clamps to 1–10. It
 * returns `null` only when there is genuinely no score-like number to be found.
 */
/** A parsed score is always on the 1–10 scale, or null when nothing matched. */
export type ParsedCriticScore = number | null;
/**
 * Extract a 1–10 critic score from a critic's free-text output.
 *
 * Resolution order (first match wins):
 *   1. `===SCORE=== N`            — the authoritative machine marker
 *   2. `N/10`, `N/100`, `N/5`     — explicit fraction (normalised to 0–10)
 *   3. `N out of 10|100|5`        — worded fraction (denominator optional → 10)
 *   4. `score|rating|rate(d): N`  — a score-word followed by a number
 *   5. `rate this N` / `rate it N` — verb phrasing
 *
 * For the score-word / "out of" forms without an explicit denominator, a value
 * in 0–10 is taken as-is, a value in 11–100 is treated as a 0–100 score and
 * divided by 10, and anything above 100 is rejected (it is not a score). The
 * result is clamped to 1–10. Returns `null` when nothing score-like is found.
 */
export declare function parseCriticScore(output: string): ParsedCriticScore;
//# sourceMappingURL=parse-score.d.ts.map