code-server
VS Code in the browser
Runssource: GitHubhomepageTypeScriptMITcommit 2b2f8b3d5c64
TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: browser ide, dev tools, development environment, ide, remote work, vscode and vscode remote.
code-server runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 30 minutes and hit 7 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
code-server compiles, starts, listens on HTTP, answers 200 on /healthz, and 22 of 23 unit test suites pass (337/338 tests).
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 70.7 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.
- native-keymap build failed: missing X11/xkbfile headers and libraries8 minutes
- Node.js v18 in container, project requires Node 245 minutes
- kerberos native module build failed: missing gssapi/gssapi.h3 minutes
- Missing git submodule lib/vscode2 minutes
- kerberos build still failed: missing et/com_err.h2 minutes
- argon2 install script not approved by npm1 minute
- Install time
- 30 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 34 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 7 hit, 7 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- node out/node/entry.js --help printed usage; server started on port 18080 and curl returned 200 on /healthz; unit tests: 22/23 suites passed (337/338 tests passed, 1 pre-existing failure in app.test.ts about socket unlinking)
- Model tokens used
- 288,045
- Exact commit tested
- 2b2f8b3d5c64
- 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.
"compilerOptions": {
"target": "es6",
"lib": ["es2020", "dom", "dom.iterable"],
"module": "commonjs",
exec
/bin/sh -lc 'export PATH="$HOME/.n/bin:$PATH" && cd /work/repo && echo "=== Test Summary ===" && no…
succeeded in 186532ms:
Killed
Now I have all the findings. Here's the final report:
tokens used
288,045
Now I have all the findings. 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 30 minutes.
- Recovered from all 7 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
- Measured 3 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What it is a reasonable choice for
- Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.
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 | 3/3 | Did not run | 20.00 | 0.08 | |
| Argusic Runner | 2/3 | Runs | 100.00 | 0.16 | |
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Runs with mocks | 92.00 | 0.11 |
Topics (from GitHub)
browser-idedev-toolsdevelopment-environmentideremote-workvscodevscode-remote
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/code-server)Questions
- Does code-server run?
- Yes. code-server runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 30 minutes, hitting 7 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test code-server?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 2b2f8b3d5c64. 3 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test code-server?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.16: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does code-server take to install?
- 30 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 code-server need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing code-server?
- 7 things broke in the recorded run, and 7 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- Where is the evidence for code-server?
- All 3 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.