Yes. leafwiki runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 2 minutes, hitting 0 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test leafwiki?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit f20fcffcb883. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test leafwiki?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.06: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does leafwiki take to install?

1.5 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 leafwiki need a GPU?

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

What goes wrong when installing leafwiki?

Nothing did, in the recorded run: zero errors between clone and running.

Where is the evidence for leafwiki?

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.

leafwiki

LeafWiki - Self-hosted wiki. Single Go binary, SQLite, Markdown on disk. No external database required.

Runssource: GitHub homepageGoMITcommit f20fcffcb883

Go, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: docker, documentation, file based, flat file, go, knowledge base, markdown and react.

leafwiki runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 1.5 minutes and hit no errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

LeafWiki compiles from source, starts on port 8080 with SQLite storage and JWT auth, health API returns 200 OK, admin login succeeds with cookie-based JWT tokens, page tree is readable, pages can be created/read/updated via the API, and the full Go test suite (48 packages) passes with zero failures.
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: $0.06 (measured)
recorded runs: 2
last tested: 2026-09-18
stars: 1,149
forks: 87
open issues: 41
watchers: 7
size: 9 MB
created: 2025-03-25
last push: 2026-09-22

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-09-23. 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.

Install time: 2 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 12 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 0 hit, 0 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: go test ./... exited 0 with all 48 packages passing; curl -s http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/health returned 200 {"checks":{"data_dir":"ok","search":"ok","sqlite":"ok"},"status":"ok"}; login via POST /api/auth/login returned 200 with JWT cookies and user data; tree, page read, page creation, page update, and by-path lookup all returned correct 200 responses.
Model tokens used: 94,290
Exact commit tested: f20fcffcb883
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

Watch the session

The whole run, from a clean machine, at the speed it actually happened. Nothing is cut and nothing is sped up.

A recording of attempt 2, run 2026-09-18, the attempt that decided the verdict above. The terminal recording it was made from is the evidence, stored with a sha256 fingerprint; the video is a rendering of it. Nothing loads from the video host until you press play.

The end of the recording

The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.

curl -s -b /tmp/cookies_verify.txt \"http://127.0.0.1:8081/api/pages/by-path?path=welcome-to-leafwi…
echo \"\"
pkill -f \"leafwiki.*8081\" 2>/dev/null" in /work/repo
 exited 143 in 3953ms:
{"checks":{"data_dir":"ok","search":"ok","sqlite":"ok"},"status":"ok"}
HTTP_CODE:200
{"accessTokenExpiresAt":1789760580,"message":"Login successful","user":{"id":"GIkZ8Clvg","username"…
{"id":"9DkW8ClDR","title":"Welcome to LeafWiki","slug":"welcome-to-leafwiki","version":"2026-09-18T…
Everything works. Here's the final report:
tokens used
94,290
Everything works. Here's 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

Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
Installed in 1.5 minutes, faster than the median of the 8 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
Nothing broke on the way: zero errors between clone and running.
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.

Of the 9 docker projects Argusic has installed and timed, leafwiki was the 1st fastest to reach a running state, and 8 of 9 reached one at all.

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 1.5 minutes after the clone.
Following its own README: the documented path worked with nothing to fix.

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	Runs	100.00	0.06	2026-09-18 19:28 UTC
Argusic Runner	1/3	Runs	100.00	0.09	2026-09-03 09:58 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

docker documentation file-based flat-file go knowledge-base markdown react runbooks self-hosted single-binary sqlite wiki

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does leafwiki run?: Yes. leafwiki runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 2 minutes, hitting 0 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test leafwiki?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit f20fcffcb883. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test leafwiki?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.06: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does leafwiki take to install?: 1.5 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 leafwiki need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing leafwiki?: Nothing did, in the recorded run: zero errors between clone and running.
How does leafwiki compare with the alternatives?: Of the 9 docker projects Argusic has installed and timed, leafwiki was the 1st fastest to reach a running state, and 8 of 9 reached one at all.
Where is the evidence for leafwiki?: 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.