Claw3D
Claw3D is an open source 3D engine built on OpenClaw for creating games, simulations, and high-performance 3D applications.
Runssource: GitHubhomepageTypeScriptMITcommit 0565b7892909
TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: 3d engine, claw3d, game engine, gamedev, graphics, javascript, open source and openclaw.
Claw3D runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 5 minutes and hit 2 errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
npm install succeeds, npm run build produces the Next.js app, npm run typecheck passes cleanly, the dev server starts and serves HTTP 200 on /office, the demo gateway starts on ws://localhost:18789, and the vitest test suite runs with most tests passing and 5 documented pre-existing failures.
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 90 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed . 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.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- Node.js v18.19.1 was the default but the project requires >=20.2 minutes
- 5 pre-existing vitest test failures across 4 test files (agentFleetHydration, useGatewayConnection, useAgentSettingsMutationController, agentChatPanel-controls, taskBoardView)
- Install time
- 5 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 75 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 2 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- npm run typecheck exited 0; npm run build exited 0; dev server: curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000/office returned 200; npm run test -- --run executed approximately 250+ test files with 5 pre-existing failures; npm run demo-gateway started and listened on ws://localhost:18789
- Model tokens used
- 281,819
- Exact commit tested
- 0565b7892909
- 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
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
Open in browser: http://localhost:3000 === checking root === GET / 307 in 1965ms (compile: 1623ms, render: 342ms) HTTP /: 307 === checking office === ○ Compiling /office ... HTTP /office: 200 === done === I have all the data. Here's the final report: tokens used 281,819 I have all the data. Here's the final report:
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
- Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
- Installed in 5 minutes.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
- Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What did not, or is not known
- Hit 2 errors during setup, 1 of which were not solved.
What it is a reasonable choice for
- Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.
- A quick evaluation: it was running 5 minutes after the clone.
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 | 2/3 | Runs | 90.00 | 0.18 | |
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Ran out of time | 0.00 | 0.16 |
Topics (from GitHub)
3d-engineclaw3dgame-enginegamedevgraphicsjavascriptopen-sourceopenclawrenderingthreejswebgl
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/claw3d)Questions
- Does Claw3D run?
- Yes. Claw3D runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 5 minutes, hitting 2 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test Claw3D?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 0565b7892909. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test Claw3D?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.18: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does Claw3D take to install?
- 5 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 Claw3D need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing Claw3D?
- 2 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 Claw3D?
- All 2 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.