Does buildwithclaude run?

buildwithclaude runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 6 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test buildwithclaude?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 18e6760b9901. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test buildwithclaude?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.07: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does buildwithclaude take to install?

6 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.

Does buildwithclaude need a GPU?

Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.

What goes wrong when installing buildwithclaude?

5 things broke in the recorded run, and 1 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.

Where is the evidence for buildwithclaude?

The recorded run is on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.

buildwithclaude

A single hub to find Claude Skills, Agents, Commands, Hooks, Plugins, and Marketplace collections to extend Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Agent SDK and OpenClaw

Runs with mockssource: GitHub homepagePythonMITcommit 18e6760b9901

Python, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: claude, claude code, claude code commands, claude skills, cli tool, commands, mcp and mcp server.

buildwithclaude runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 6 minutes and hit 5 errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

npm install, validation of 294 agents/249 commands/40 hooks/89 skills, and 22 unit tests all pass after patching the test runner for Node 18 compatibility; the web-ui Next.js build and generate-registry scripts are blocked by missing Node 20+ and 3 absent script modules.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured

Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 76 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).

At a glance

verdict: Runs with mocks
Argusic Score: 76 / 100
cost of the verifying run: $0.07 (measured)
recorded runs: 1
last tested: 2026-10-01
stars: 3,572
forks: 543
open issues: 16
watchers: 37
size: 17 MB
created: 2025-07-25
last push: 2026-09-30

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-10-01. Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.

What was measured

From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.

Time lost to each failure while testing buildwithclaude, drawn from the recorded run — Every bar is a failure the agent recorded, with the time it cost. Drawn from this run, not from anywhere else.

What went wrong, in the agent's own words

The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.

scripts/generate-registry.js requires fetch-docker-mcp.js, fetch-official-mcp.js, enhance-docker-stats.js — none exist in the repo3 minutes
package.json test:unit script uses --experimental-strip-types which Node 18 doesn't support2 minutes
Next.js 16 build requires Node >=20.9.0, environment has Node 18.19.1 — web-ui cannot build2 minutes
mcp-servers/ directory referenced by generate-registry.js but does not exist
npm install had 11 EBADENGINE warnings for Node 18 vs required Node 20+ for several packages

Install time: 6 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 11 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 5 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: npm test exited 0, 3 validators passed, 25 tests passed (3 JS + 22 TS), 9 integration harness tests passed
Model tokens used: 240,035
Exact commit tested: 18e6760b9901
Container image: sha256:cdd920bce783

What was not measured

The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.

Peak GPU memory: this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
Behaviour over a long run: each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
Behaviour against real services: this run was verified against stand-in services only

The end of the recording

The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.

ls: cannot access 'scripts/fetch-docker-mcp*': No such file or directory
fetch-official-mcp:
ls: cannot access 'scripts/fetch-official*': No such file or directory
enhance-docker-stats:
ls: cannot access 'scripts/enhance-docker*': No such file or directory
mcp-servers dir:
ls: cannot access 'mcp-servers/': No such file or directory
scripts missing count: 10 files present, looking for 3 missing modules
Now I have a complete picture. Let me compile the final result.
tokens used
240,035
Now I have a complete picture. Let me compile the final result.

Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.

How it was tested

One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.

Strengths and limits

Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.

What went well

Installed in 6 minutes.
Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.

What did not, or is not known

Only reached a running state against stand-in services, so nothing here proves it works against the real ones.
Hit 5 errors during setup, 4 of which were not solved.
Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.

Also tested, in the same area

Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.

Run history

tested by	attempt	outcome	score	cost USD	when
Argusic Runner	1/3	Runs with mocks	76.00	0.07	2026-10-01 01:43 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

claude claude-code claude-code-commands claude-skills cli-tool commands mcp mcp-server mcp-tools openclaw plugin-marketplace subagents

Embed the badge

Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.

[![Tested by Argusic](https://argusic.com/badge/buildwithclaude.svg)](https://argusic.com/subject/buildwithclaude)

Questions

Does buildwithclaude run?: buildwithclaude runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 6 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test buildwithclaude?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 18e6760b9901. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test buildwithclaude?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.07: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does buildwithclaude take to install?: 6 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
Does buildwithclaude need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing buildwithclaude?: 5 things broke in the recorded run, and 1 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
Where is the evidence for buildwithclaude?: The recorded run is on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.