ruff

An extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.

Runssource: GitHubRustMITcommit 798f3656eff8

Rust, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: linter, pep8, python, python3, ruff, rust, rustpython and static analysis.

ruff runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 31 minutes and hit no errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

Rust 1.99.0 toolchain installed, both ruff 0.16.10 and ty checked-zero-version binaries built successfully, and 4053 total tests across ruff_linter, ruff_formatter, ruff_python_ast, ruff integration, ty_python_semantic, and ty mdtest suites all pass with 0 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
$0.24 (measured)
recorded runs
1
last tested
stars
49,929
forks
0
open issues
0
watchers
0
created
-
last push
-

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.

Install time
31 minutes
Cold machine to finish
46 minutes
Errors hit and fixed
0 hit, 0 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved
cargo test -p ruff_linter (2837+11 passed), cargo test -p ruff_formatter (30+69 passed), cargo test -p ruff_python_ast (54 passed), cargo test -p ty_python_semantic (456 passed), ty mdtest (499 passed), ruff integration tests (97 passed), ruff check/format/--version, ty check/--version, all returned clean
Model tokens used
298,535
Exact commit tested
798f3656eff8
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.

- `ty unknown (798f3656e 2026-10-06)` — type-checks Python files, CLI responds correctly
**Test suites verified** (all pass):
| Suite | Tests | Result |
|---|---|---|
| ruff_linter (lib + doctests) | 2837 + 11 = 2848 | All pass, 5 ignored |
| ruff_formatter (lib + doctests) | 30 + 69 = 99 | All pass, 1 ignored |
| ruff_python_ast | 54 | All pass |
| ruff integration tests | 97 | All pass |
| ty_python_semantic (lib) | 456 | All pass, 34 ignored |
| ty mdtest (semantic) | 499 | All pass |
| Total verified | 4053 | All pass |
**No errors encountered** — install, build, and all test suites ran cleanly. No fixes were needed.

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 31 minutes.
  • 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.

What did not, or is not known

  • 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.
  • 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.

  • ast-grep verified to run · Rust · 2 shared topics
  • jscpd verified to run · Rust · 2 shared topics

Run history

tested byattemptoutcomescorecost USDwhen
Argusic Runner1/3Runs100.000.24

Topics (from GitHub)

linterpep8pythonpython3ruffrustrustpythonstatic-analysisstatic-code-analysisstyle-guidestyleguide

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does ruff run?
Yes. ruff runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 31 minutes, hitting 0 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test ruff?
On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 798f3656eff8. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test ruff?
The run that produced this verdict cost $0.24: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does ruff take to install?
31 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 ruff need a GPU?
Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing ruff?
Nothing did, in the recorded run: zero errors between clone and running.
Where is the evidence for ruff?
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.

Discussion