hucre

Zero-dependency spreadsheet engine. Read & write XLSX, CSV, ODS. Pure TypeScript, works everywhere.

Runssource: GitHubhomepageTypeScriptMITcommit de00ffce5dec

TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: csv, csv parser, esm, excel, ods, ods parser, parser and spreadsheet.

hucre runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 2 minutes and hit 2 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

Build, typecheck, all 10640 tests pass, and XLSX read/write roundtrip works correctly via the ESM API and CLI inspect.

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
$0.02 (measured)
recorded runs
2
last tested
stars
2,188
forks
67
open issues
7
watchers
1
size
6 MB
created
last push

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.

Time lost to each failure while testing hucre, 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.

  • Node v18.19.1 installed, project requires >=240.5 minutes
  • pnpm not found0.1 minutes
Install time
2 minutes
Cold machine to finish
4 minutes
Errors hit and fixed
2 hit, 2 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved
./node_modules/.bin/vitest run, 236 test files, 10640 tests passed; also roundtripped XLSX (write then read) and verified CLI inspect command
Model tokens used
19,031
Exact commit tested
de00ffce5dec
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.

writeFileSync('/tmp/test.xlsx', xlsx);
console.log('wrote', xlsx.length, 'bytes');
\" && node dist/cli.mjs inspect /tmp/test.xlsx" in /work/repo
 succeeded in 168ms:
wrote 3943 bytes
◐ Inspecting /tmp/test.xlsx...
ℹ Sheets: 1
  [0] "Test" - 3 rows x 1 cols (string: 1, number: 2)
Everything works. Here's the report:
tokens used
19,031
Everything works. Here's the 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

  • Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
  • Installed in 2 minutes.
  • Recovered from all 2 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.
  • Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.

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 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 byattemptoutcomescorecost USDwhen
Argusic Runner2/3Runs100.000.02
Argusic Runner1/3Runs100.000.01

Topics (from GitHub)

csvcsv-parseresmexcelodsods-parserparserspreadsheetstreamingtree-shakeabletypescriptxlsxxlsx-parserxlsx-writerzero-dependency

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does hucre run?
Yes. hucre runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 2 minutes, hitting 2 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test hucre?
On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit de00ffce5dec. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test hucre?
The run that produced this verdict cost $0.02: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does hucre take to install?
2 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 hucre need a GPU?
Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing hucre?
2 things broke in the recorded run, and 2 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
Where is the evidence for hucre?
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.

Discussion