Does intelligent-terminal run?

Argusic could not verify that intelligent-terminal runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 38 minutes, hitting 7 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test intelligent-terminal?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 0ed68b9bbf12. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test intelligent-terminal?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.32: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does intelligent-terminal take to install?

38 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 intelligent-terminal need a GPU?

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

What goes wrong when installing intelligent-terminal?

7 things broke in the recorded run, and 7 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.

Where is the evidence for intelligent-terminal?

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.

intelligent-terminal

A fork of Windows Terminal with native agent integration, right in your command line.

Could not verifysource: GitHub homepageC++MITcommit 0ed68b9bbf12

C++, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: acp, agent, agent client protocol, agentic ai, ai, cli, command line and console.

Argusic could not get intelligent-terminal running. An Argusic agent installed it in 38 minutes and hit 7 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

Rust toolchain installed and working. Installer bootstrap crate builds and its 2 unit tests pass. WTA crate type-checks for Windows MSVC target. C++ component (Visual Studio/MSBuild) cannot build on Linux. Full test suite (1997 WTA tests) requires Windows to execute.
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 25 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).

At a glance

verdict: Could not verify
Argusic Score: 25 / 100
cost of the verifying run: $0.32 (measured)
recorded runs: 2
last tested: 2026-10-04
stars: 2,040
forks: 163
open issues: 136
watchers: 19
size: 217 MB
created: 2026-05-18
last push: 2026-10-04

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-10-04. 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 intelligent-terminal, 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.

WTA test links to PE binary but cannot execute on Linux (Exec format error)10 minutes
Missing mingw-w64 cross-compiler for Windows GNU target5 minutes
Rust toolchain not installed2 minutes
WTA crate uses Windows-only APIs (std::os::windows, tokio::net::windows::named_pipe, win32 sys) — won't compile on Linux natively2 minutes
Missing Windows SDK library -lOneCore_apiset2 minutes
WTA crate uses ms-prod-1.93 toolchain not available in rustup1 minute

Install time: 38 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 32 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 7 hit, 7 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: cargo test on installer/bootstrap: 2 passed, 0 failed; WTA crate cargo check --target x86_64-pc-windows-msvc passed (53 warnings, 0 errors) with and without --tests; cross-compiled binary for x86_64-pc-windows-gnu produced but could not execute (no functioning wine)
Model tokens used: 298,366
Exact commit tested: 0ed68b9bbf12
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.

test result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Now I have a complete picture. Let me compile the final report.
exec
/bin/sh -lc '# One last check - count time elapsed
echo "Started at approximately turn start; current time:" && date -u && echo "---" && echo "Final v…
 succeeded in 0ms:
Started at approximately turn start; current time:
Sun Oct  4 20:17:36 UTC 2026
Final verification of installer bootstrap:
test result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
tokens used
298,366

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 38 minutes.
Recovered from all 7 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.

What did not, or is not known

An agent with no time limit did not get it running.

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	2/3	Did not run	50.00	0.32	2026-10-04 20:17 UTC
Argusic Runner	1/3	Did not run	0.00	0.14	2026-10-04 19:45 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

acp agent agent-client-protocol agentic-ai ai cli command-line console copilot terminal windows windows-terminal

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does intelligent-terminal run?: Argusic could not verify that intelligent-terminal runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 38 minutes, hitting 7 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test intelligent-terminal?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 0ed68b9bbf12. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test intelligent-terminal?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.32: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does intelligent-terminal take to install?: 38 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 intelligent-terminal need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing intelligent-terminal?: 7 things broke in the recorded run, and 7 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
Where is the evidence for intelligent-terminal?: 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.