pdf.js
PDF Reader in JavaScript
Runssource: GitHubJavaScriptApache-2.0commit 638bcdf0ada7
JavaScript, Apache-2.0 licensed.
pdf.js runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 13 minutes and hit 3 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
PDF.js builds and serves correctly from the dev server (HTTP 200 on viewer, build assets, and test PDFs), passes all Node.js-based unit tests (1662 specs), and passes TypeScript type checking
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
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.
- Node.js v18.19.1 too old; engine requires >=22.22.31 minute
- 14 CLI unit tests fail with 'Document/OffscreenCanvas is not supported in Node.js'
- Puppeteer browser tests cannot run — no Chrome binary available in container
- Install time
- 13 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 13 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 3 hit, 3 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- npx gulp generic exited 0; dev server returned HTTP 200 on /web/viewer.html, /build/generic/build/pdf.mjs, and /test/pdfs/; CLI unit tests ran 1662 specs (0 real failures, 14 expected DOM failures); npx gulp typestest exited 0
- Model tokens used
- 132,401
- Exact commit tested
- 638bcdf0ada7
- 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.
**CLI tests**: `node --enable-source-maps node_modules/jasmine/bin/jasmine JASMINE_CONFIG_PATH=test… **Type checking**: `npx gulp typestest` passes. **Browser tests**: Skipped — no Chrome/Chromium binary in container. Puppeteer would need one insta… 2026-10-07T07:29:31.766472Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a11… tokens used 132,401 Everything is verified. Here's the final assessment: **Install**: `npm install` installed 863 packages. `npx gulp generic` built successfully producing … **Server**: `npx gulp server` serves `web/viewer.html` (72K, HTTP 200), build assets (HTTP 200), an… **CLI tests**: `node --enable-source-maps node_modules/jasmine/bin/jasmine JASMINE_CONFIG_PATH=test… **Type checking**: `npx gulp typestest` passes. **Browser tests**: Skipped — no Chrome/Chromium binary in container. Puppeteer would need one insta…
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.
- Recovered from all 3 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 Apache-2.0, as reported by its host.
What did not, or is not known
- Took 13 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 10 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 11 JavaScript projects Argusic has installed and timed, pdf.js was the 10th fastest to reach a running state, and 6 of 11 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.
Run history
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/pdf-js)Questions
- Does pdf.js run?
- Yes. pdf.js runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 13 minutes, hitting 3 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test pdf.js?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 638bcdf0ada7. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test pdf.js?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.04: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does pdf.js take to install?
- 13 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 pdf.js need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing pdf.js?
- 3 things broke in the recorded run, and 3 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- How does pdf.js compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 11 JavaScript projects Argusic has installed and timed, pdf.js was the 10th fastest to reach a running state, and 6 of 11 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for pdf.js?
- 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.