Yes. coreutils runs. 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 coreutils?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit ddc98c254744. 3 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test coreutils?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.10: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does coreutils take to install?

6.2 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 coreutils need a GPU?

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

What goes wrong when installing coreutils?

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

Where is the evidence for coreutils?

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.

coreutils

Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils

Runssource: GitHub homepageRustMITcommit ddc98c254744

Rust, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: busybox, command line tool, coreutils, cross platform, gnu coreutils and rust.

coreutils runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 6.2 minutes and hit 5 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

uutils coreutils 0.11.0 builds cleanly with Rust 1.98.1 on Ubuntu 24.04, produces a working multi-call binary (verified: --version, --help, cat, sort, echo, true, false, ls, head, md5sum, wc), and passes 5078 of 5129 functional tests, all 51 failures are container-environment issues (no TTY colors, no /dev devices, inotify limits, overlay FS sparse detection).
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 100 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).

At a glance

verdict: Runs
Argusic Score: 100 / 100
cost of the verifying run: $0.10 (measured)
recorded runs: 3
last tested: 2026-09-22
stars: 24,156
forks: 2,050
open issues: 1,171
watchers: 194
size: 46 MB
created: 2013-08-02
last push: 2026-09-23

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-09-23. 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 coreutils, 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.

rustc not found in container2.5 minutes
test_localization_and_colors: 3 tests fail because no TTY attached so ANSI color codes are not emitted
test_ls::test_device_number: no block/char devices in /dev in container
test_cp sparse tests: overlay FS doesn't support block reporting
47 tail follow tests fail: inotify "Too many open files" / cannot be used in container

Install time: 6 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 24 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 5 hit, 5 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: cargo build --release exited 0; ./target/release/coreutils --version returned 'coreutils 0.11.0 (multi-call binary)'; cargo test --test tests: 5078 passed / 51 failed / 33 ignored; all 51 failures are environmental (inotify limits in container, no /dev devices, overlay FS sparse block reporting)
Model tokens used: 142,606
Exact commit tested: ddc98c254744
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

Watch the session

The whole run, from a clean machine, at the speed it actually happened. Nothing is cut and nothing is sped up.

A recording of attempt 2, run 2026-09-15. The verdict above comes from a different attempt, so read this as one session and not as the current result. The terminal recording it was made from is the evidence, stored with a sha256 fingerprint; the video is a rendering of it. Nothing loads from the video host until you press play.

The end of the recording

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

 succeeded in 0ms:
md5sum (uutils coreutils) 0.11.0
sum (uutils coreutils) 0.11.0
  795  4257 29471 Cargo.toml
exec
/bin/sh -lc 'cd /work/repo && . "$HOME/.cargo/env" && cargo build --release 2>&1 | tail -3' in /wor…
 succeeded in 290ms:
    Finished `release` profile [optimized] target(s) in 0.40s
Here's the comprehensive result:
tokens used
142,606
Here's the comprehensive 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

Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
Installed in 6.2 minutes.
Recovered from all 5 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.
A quick evaluation: it was running 6.2 minutes after the clone.

Run history

tested by	attempt	outcome	score	cost USD	when
Argusic Runner	3/3	Runs	100.00	0.10	2026-09-22 07:40 UTC
Argusic Runner	2/3	Runs	100.00	0.05	2026-09-15 01:34 UTC
Argusic Runner	1/3	Runs	100.00	0.15	2026-09-03 11:48 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

busybox command-line-tool coreutils cross-platform gnu-coreutils rust

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does coreutils run?: Yes. coreutils runs. 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 coreutils?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit ddc98c254744. 3 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test coreutils?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.10: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does coreutils take to install?: 6.2 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 coreutils need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing coreutils?: 5 things broke in the recorded run, and 5 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
Where is the evidence for coreutils?: 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.