Yes. edit runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 1 minutes, hitting 1 error on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test edit?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit c470ca59af44. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test edit?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.04: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does edit take to install?

0.5 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 edit need a GPU?

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

What goes wrong when installing edit?

1 thing 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 edit?

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.

edit

We all edit.

Runssource: GitHubRustMITcommit c470ca59af44

Rust, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: editor, rust, terminal and text editor.

edit runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 0.5 minutes and hit 1 error and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

The Edit 2.0.0 terminal text editor builds from source, passes all 65 tests (requiring EDIT_CFG_ICUUC_SONAME=libicuuc.so.74, EDIT_CFG_ICUI18N_SONAME=libicui18n.so.74, and EDIT_CFG_ICU_RENAMING_VERSION=74 for ICU 74 on Ubuntu 24.04), and the release binary responds to --help and --version commands.
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: $0.04 (measured)
recorded runs: 1
last tested: 2026-09-26
stars: 14,628
forks: 0
open issues: 0
watchers: 0
created: -
last push: -

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page. 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 edit, 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.

ICU library on Ubuntu 24.04 uses versioned exports (u_errorName_74) and versioned .so filenames (libicuuc.so.74), but the project defaults to unversioned names (libicuuc.so) and unversioned symbols (u_errorName). Two tests (replace_one_zero_width, replace_all_zero_width) that depend on ICU regex panicked with ICU_MISSING_ERROR.2 minutes

Install time: under a minute
Cold machine to finish: 7 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 1 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: 1) `cargo test` with ICU env vars: 60 lib tests + 2 binary tests + 3 doc-tests = 65 passed, 0 failed, 1 ignored (the ignored ICU::init test also passes when run with --ignored). 2) `./target/release/edit --version` printed 'edit version 2.0.0' with exit code 0. 3) `./target/release/edit --help` printed usage text. 4) `echo q | timeout 2 script -q -c './target/release/edit' /dev/null` confirmed the app starts, reads input, and exits (expectedly fails on terminal size in headless env). 5) Release binary is a 660K executable at target/release/edit.
Model tokens used: 301,443
Exact commit tested: c470ca59af44
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.

 succeeded in 372ms:
test result: ok. 60 passed; 0 failed; 1 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.01s
test result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
test result: ok. 3 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Now I have everything I need for a thorough final report.
**ARGUSIC_RESULT:** {"install_succeeded": true, "launch_succeeded": true, "install_minutes": 0.5, "…
2026-09-26T13:22:53.971174Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0d…
2026-09-26T13:22:53.971215Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0d…
tokens used
301,443
Now I have everything I need for a thorough final report.
**ARGUSIC_RESULT:** {"install_succeeded": true, "launch_succeeded": true, "install_minutes": 0.5, "…

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 0.5 minutes.
Recovered from all 1 error 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 0.5 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	0.04	2026-09-26 13:23 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

editor rust terminal text-editor

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does edit run?: Yes. edit runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 1 minutes, hitting 1 error on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test edit?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit c470ca59af44. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test edit?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.04: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does edit take to install?: 0.5 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 edit need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing edit?: 1 thing 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 edit?: 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.