craft-launcher
The Craft App Launcher
Runssource: GitHubRustApache-2.0commit 7c7271e5f629
Rust, Apache-2.0 licensed.
craft-launcher runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 18 minutes and hit no errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
ArtCraft Launcher 0.5.1 builds from source, all 369 tests pass, clippy and formatting are clean, the wasm32 check passes, and the binary responds to --version.
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
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.
- Install time
- 18 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 18 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 0 hit, 0 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- cargo build produced all binaries; cargo test: 369 passed, 0 failed, 6 ignored (expected: network/D-Bus/subprocess-only tests); cargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warnings: clean; cargo fmt --check: clean; cargo xtask wasm: both wasm packages pass; ./target/debug/artcraft-launcher --version printed 'artcraft-launcher 0.5.1' and exited 0
- Model tokens used
- 61,060
- Exact commit tested
- 7c7271e5f629
- 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.
- The GUI app starts on the virtual display (Xvfb `:99`), logs show egui/wgpu initializing with llv…
**Errors encountered:** None. Rust was not pre-installed, but `rustup` installed cleanly (no root n…
exec
/bin/sh -lc "cat /proc/uptime 2>/dev/null | awk '{printf \"total_seconds=%s total_minutes=%s\\n\", …
exited 2 in 0ms:
/bin/sh: 1: Syntax error: Missing '))'
exec
/bin/sh -lc 'date -u "+%H:%M"' in /work/repo
succeeded in 0ms:
07:38
tokens used
61,060Replay 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.
- Nothing broke on the way: zero errors between clone and running.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed Apache-2.0, as reported by its host.
What did not, or is not known
- Took 18 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 13 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 14 Rust projects Argusic has installed and timed, craft-launcher was the 9th fastest to reach a running state, and 12 of 14 reached one at all.
What it is a reasonable choice for
- Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.
- Following its own README: the documented path worked with nothing to fix.
Run history
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/craft-launcher)Questions
- Does craft-launcher run?
- Yes. craft-launcher runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 18 minutes, hitting 0 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test craft-launcher?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 7c7271e5f629. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test craft-launcher?
- 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 craft-launcher take to install?
- 18 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 craft-launcher need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing craft-launcher?
- Nothing did, in the recorded run: zero errors between clone and running.
- How does craft-launcher compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 14 Rust projects Argusic has installed and timed, craft-launcher was the 9th fastest to reach a running state, and 12 of 14 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for craft-launcher?
- 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.