Does create-pull-request run?

Yes. create-pull-request runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 5 minutes, hitting 4 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test create-pull-request?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 11e8dc7c9cc9. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test create-pull-request?

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 create-pull-request 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 create-pull-request need a GPU?

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

What goes wrong when installing create-pull-request?

4 things broke in the recorded run, and 4 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.

Where is the evidence for create-pull-request?

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.

create-pull-request

A GitHub action to create a pull request for changes to your repository in the actions workspace

Runssource: GitHubTypeScriptMITcommit 11e8dc7c9cc9

TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: actions workspace, automation, ci cd, create pull request, github action, pull request and workflow.

create-pull-request runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 5 minutes and hit 4 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

npm install and npm run build succeed with Node 22.12.0; all 18 unit tests pass; all 50 integration tests pass against a local git daemon serving a multi-commit bare repo; the pre-compiled dist/index.js loads as a valid GitHub Actions module.
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: $0.16 (measured)
recorded runs: 1
last tested: 2026-10-02
stars: 2,853
forks: 550
open issues: 25
watchers: 23
size: 36 MB
created: 2019-07-16
last push: 2026-10-01

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-10-02. 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 create-pull-request, 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.

Integration test runner uses Docker (not available), and git daemon needed for remote operations4 minutes
Node 18 installed, but package requires >=24.4.0; also ncc fails with 'N.hash is not a function' on Node 243 minutes
Integration test paths hardcoded to /git/local/repos/ which is not writable in this container2 minutes
Unit tests fail because lib/ (compiled tsc output) is missing1 minute

Install time: 5 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 15 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 4 hit, 4 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: npm run test:unit (18/18 passed); npx jest int --runInBand with local git daemon (50/50 passed); npm run build (tsc + ncc) exits 0 producing dist/index.js; node -e require('./dist/index.js') loads module successfully with Node 22
Model tokens used: 124,374
Exact commit tested: 11e8dc7c9cc9
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.

5. Integration tests (patched for container paths, git daemon on port 9418): all 3 suites passed, 5…
6. dist/index.js: loads successfully as module with Node 22 (YAML schema warning expected)
7. Errors encountered and fixed:
   a. Node 18 incompatible with package >=24.4.0 requirement -> downloaded Node 22 and 24
   b. ncc fails on Node 24 (N.hash issue) -> Node 22 used for build
   c. Test paths hardcoded to /git/ -> patched to /tmp/git/
   d. Git daemon required for integration tests -> set up local repos and daemon
   e. Integration test runner uses Docker -> bypassed by running jest directly
Now let me produce the final ARGUSIC_RESULT.
tokens used
124,374
Now let me produce the final ARGUSIC_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 5 minutes.
Recovered from all 4 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.

What did not, or is not known

Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.

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	1/3	Runs	100.00	0.16	2026-10-02 16:31 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

actions-workspace automation ci-cd create-pull-request github-action pull-request workflow

Embed the badge

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

[![Tested by Argusic](https://argusic.com/badge/create-pull-request.svg)](https://argusic.com/subject/create-pull-request)

Questions

Does create-pull-request run?: Yes. create-pull-request runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 5 minutes, hitting 4 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test create-pull-request?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 11e8dc7c9cc9. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test create-pull-request?: 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 create-pull-request 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 create-pull-request need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing create-pull-request?: 4 things broke in the recorded run, and 4 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
Where is the evidence for create-pull-request?: 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.