evlog
Digging through logs is not observability. It's hope, wide events, structured errors, TypeScript-first, every runtime.
Runssource: GitHubhomepageTypeScriptMITcommit cced5e896135
TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: debugging, error handling, logger, logging, nextjs, nuxt, observability and otlp.
evlog runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 2.5 minutes and hit 3 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
All 1905 tests pass across 90 files, lint and typecheck both clean, with the redact clone function fixed to preserve exotic objects (DOMException, Error) instead of stripping them via structuredClone.
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.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- structuredClone used by cloneForRedaction destroys DOMException objects (prototype properties lost)2.5 minutes
- Node v18.19.1 too old for pnpm 11.26.0 (needs >=22.13)1.5 minutes
- corepack threw 'Cannot find matching keyid' due to missing signing key1 minute
- Install time
- 3 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 10 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 3 hit, 3 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- pnpm run test: 1905 passed, 2 skipped, 0 failed; pnpm run lint: 22 tasks successful; pnpm run typecheck: 27 tasks successful
- Model tokens used
- 100,841
- Exact commit tested
- cced5e896135
- 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.
tokens used 100,841 All checks pass. Here's the summary: **Environment setup:** Node v18.19.1 pre-installed but pnpm 11.26.0 requires Node >=22.13. Download… **Error found:** 4 test failures in `test/core/redact.test.ts`. `structuredClone` (used by `cloneFo… **Fix in `src/redact.ts`:** Replaced `cloneForRedaction` with `deepClonePlain` that only deep-copie… **Final state:** - `pnpm install` — ✅ - `pnpm run dev:prepare` — ✅ (13 tasks, all successful) - `pnpm run test` — ✅ 1905 passed, 2 skipped, 0 failed (90 files) - `pnpm run lint` — ✅ (22 tasks) - `pnpm run typecheck` — ✅ (27 tasks)
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 2.5 minutes.
- Recovered from all 3 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 2.5 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
Topics (from GitHub)
debuggingerror-handlingloggerloggingnextjsnuxtobservabilityotlpposthogsentrytypescriptwide-events
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/evlog)Questions
- Does evlog run?
- Yes. evlog runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 3 minutes, hitting 3 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test evlog?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit cced5e896135. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test evlog?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.05: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does evlog take to install?
- 2.5 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 evlog need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing evlog?
- 3 things broke in the recorded run, and 3 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- Where is the evidence for evlog?
- 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.