You're referring to the Agreed Framework, which was a 1994 joint statement signed by the delegate from the United States, Robert Gallucci, and the DPRK delegate, Kang Sok Ju. It outlined the following provisions (not in order):
The Light Water Reactors (LWR). More on this at the end.
Steps towards normalization.
Steps towards peace and security: (a) the U.S. would need to provide formal assurances it would not use nuclear weapons against North Korea, (b) North Korea would need to "consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and (c) the DPRK would engage in North-South dialogue.
Both sides would strengthen the international non-proliferation regime. The DPRK would remain in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The DPRK would allow IAEA inspections of nuclear sites upon the conclusion of the supply contract of the light-water reactors. And when a significant portion of the LWR components were delivered, but before the delivery of key nuclear components, the DPRK would come into full compliance with the IAEA.
On to the light water reactors, because that's the key component of your question. Under the agreement, the U.S. would arrange an international consortium to deliver the light water reactors that would produce a target of 2,000 MW(e) by 2003. The U.S. would also arrange for shipments of heavy fuel oil to the DPRK within three months. The DPRK would freeze its "graphite-moderated" reactors within one month upon arrangements being made for the DPRK's fuel needs. The graphite-moderated reactors would be dismantled upon the construction of the LWRs.
Some background on North Korea. North Korea had a heavily industrialized agriculture that depended on petro-chemical fertilizers and mechanization to overcome inherent problems with arable land and with collectivization. North Korea depended on cheap, subsidized oil, primarily from the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR and the shift to a market economy from the USSR (and China), the DPRK no longer received the same level of preferential treatment. That, combined with a drought caused a severe famine in 1995, but the famine started earlier.
North Korea supplemented its power needs with nuclear power. The most concerning one for the U.S. was Yongbyon, a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor. This type of reactor can easily be used to reprocess spent fuel rods of Low-Enriched Uranium (less than 20% enrichment) to Weapons-Grade Plutonium. There are two ways conventionally used to make an atomic weapon. The first is by enriching uranium to about 95% (for technical reasons, the hardest part is going from 5-20%, not from 20-95% enrichment). The other method is by using plutonium. (The U.S. created one bomb from each method to be used on Japan.) For North Korea, the plutonium path was the fastest. The U.S. wanted to freeze Yongbyon and offered to replace its production with LWRs. LWRs produce plutonium with a lot of impurities, which make them hard to reprocess into weapons-grade plutonium. The U.S. also offered oil.
At this point, I have to apologize to the moderators. There are two basic facts left to answer the question, but I can't do it without breaking the 20-year rule. This might fall under the straddling the line provision, but I'm not even sure. If this is inappropriate, I will remove this part and everything below it.
The quick answer to your question is "No." The Light Water Reactors were never constructed and construction was suspended in 2003. Moreover, at least the first two tests came from Plutonium bombs, which would have had to be produced at Yongbyon.