joint
A proven SVG-based JavaScript diagramming library powering exceptional UIs
Runssource: GitHubhomepageJavaScriptMPL-2.0commit 881e49d8f5e4
JavaScript, MPL-2.0 licensed. The project labels itself: charts, diagramming, html5, interactive diagrams, javascript, javascript library, low code and no code.
joint runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 7 minutes and hit 2 errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
Core JointJS library v4.3.3 installs, builds, loads via CommonJS require, and passes 2116/2117 tests across server-side Mocha, client-side Karma/QUnit, and TypeScript type checks.
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 80 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.
- Core test suite: util.breakText international character test fails due to Chrome font rendering differences in this container
- Node.js v18 cannot build @joint/layout-directed-graph due to 'import ... with' ESM syntax (requires Node 20+). Core library is unaffected.
- Install time
- 7 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 9 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 2 hit, 0 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- cd packages/joint-core && node -e 'const j=require("./dist/joint.min.js"); new j.dia.Graph({},{cellNamespace:j.shapes}).addCell(new j.shapes.standard.Rectangle); console.log("SUCCESS")' printed SUCCESS; yarn test-server passed (4/4); yarn test-ts passed; yarn test ran full Karma suite (2112/2113 passed)
- Model tokens used
- 75,692
- Exact commit tested
- 881e49d8f5e4
- 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.
exec
/bin/sh -lc 'cd /work/repo/packages/joint-core && cat test/jointjs/core/util.js | head -5' in /work…
succeeded in 0ms:
'use strict';
QUnit.module('util', function(hooks) {
QUnit.test('util.interpolate', function(assert) {
Now I have all the data. Here's the final report:
This is the JointJS diagramming library monorepo (Yarn v4 workspaces). The install and build comple…
tokens used
75,692
Now I have all the data. Here's the final report:
This is the JointJS diagramming library monorepo (Yarn v4 workspaces). The install and build comple…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 7 minutes.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed MPL-2.0, as reported by its host.
What did not, or is not known
- Hit 2 errors during setup, 2 of which were not solved.
- 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 7 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)
chartsdiagramminghtml5interactive-diagramsjavascriptjavascript-librarylow-codeno-codesvgtypescripttypescript-libraryvisual-applicationsvisualization
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/joint)Questions
- Does joint run?
- Yes. joint runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 7 minutes, hitting 2 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test joint?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 881e49d8f5e4. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test joint?
- 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 joint take to install?
- 7 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 joint need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing joint?
- 2 things broke in the recorded run. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- Where is the evidence for joint?
- 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.