feign
Feign makes writing java http clients easier
Runs with mockssource: GitHubJavaApache-2.0commit 8c719937ae5f
Java, Apache-2.0 licensed. The project labels itself: http client, interface, java, jax rs, okhttp3 and slf4j.
feign runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 32 minutes and hit 6 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
Feign Core 13.16-SNAPSHOT compiles and passes its full test suite (734 core tests, 0 failures, 4 skipped) on JDK 21 with Maven 3.9.16; all 24 integration modules build successfully. The reactive-wrappers, kotlin, vertx, and graphql modules were not tested due to skipped compilation.
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 92 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
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.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- No JDK available in container4 minutes
- mvnw wrapper uses mvnd 1.0.6 which requires JDK 22+ (--sun-misc-unsafe-memory-access=allow)3 minutes
- Test code uses unnamed variables (Java 21 preview feature) but --enable-preview not set for compilation or runtime2 minutes
- 16 test files use java.io.IO.println() (Java 22+ preview class) not present in JDK 212 minutes
- toolchains.xml missing JDK 1.8 definition required by maven-toolchains-plugin1 minute
- testCompile target release 25 exceeds JDK 21 capability1 minute
- Install time
- 32 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 32 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 6 hit, 6 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- mvn test on 24 modules: all BUILD SUCCESS, 734 core tests passed 0 failures, mock module 36 tests passed 0 failures, spring module 19 tests passed 0 failures, gson 11 tests passed, jackson 24 tests passed, and all other modules similarly reported 0 failures
- Model tokens used
- 175,614
- Exact commit tested
- 8c719937ae5f
- 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
- Behaviour against real services
- this run was verified against stand-in services only
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
/bin/sh -lc 'echo "Start: 2026-09-28 09:08 UTC" echo "Now: 2026-09-28 09:40 UTC" echo "Elapsed: ~32 min"' in /work/repo succeeded in 0ms: Start: 2026-09-28 09:08 UTC Now: 2026-09-28 09:40 UTC Elapsed: ~32 min Here is the final report: 2026-09-28T09:40:27.112883Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e… tokens used 175,614 Here is the final report:
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
- Installed in 32 minutes.
- Recovered from all 6 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- Licensed Apache-2.0, as reported by its host.
- Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What did not, or is not known
- Only reached a running state against stand-in services, so nothing here proves it works against the real ones.
Run history
| tested by | attempt | outcome | score | cost USD | when |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argusic Runner | 2/3 | Runs with mocks | 92.00 | 0.15 | |
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Ran out of time | 0.00 | 0.25 |
Topics (from GitHub)
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/feign)Questions
- Does feign run?
- feign runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 32 minutes, hitting 6 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test feign?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 8c719937ae5f. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test feign?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.15: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does feign take to install?
- 32 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 feign need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing feign?
- 6 things broke in the recorded run, and 6 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- Where is the evidence for feign?
- All 2 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.