wacrm
Self-hostable CRM template for WhatsApp, shared inbox, contacts, sales pipelines, broadcasts, and no-code automations. Fork it, brand it, host it.
Runs with mockssource: GitHubhomepageTypeScriptMITcommit aee1b01f4b55
TypeScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: crm, nextjs, no code, sales pipeline, self hosted, shared inbox, supabase and typescript.
wacrm runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 4.5 minutes and hit 5 errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
Dependencies install with Node 22, 1015 unit tests pass covering auth middleware, WhatsApp encryption/webhooks/API/broadcasts/templates/registration, i18n, currency, browser notifications, and broadcast resume logic; the Next.js 16 dev server starts and correctly redirects unauthenticated root requests to /dashboard with full security headers.
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 84 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.
- npm install with Node 20 didn't install @rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu native binary8 minutes
- Node v18.19.1 too old (project requires >=20, vitest 4 rolldown binding needs >=20.19)2 minutes
- Production next build OOM-killed (2 GB RAM, no swap)
- middleware.ts convention deprecated in Next.js 16 — should use proxy.ts instead
- Edge Runtime deprecated, middleware should use nodejs runtime
- Install time
- 5 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 26 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 5 hit, 3 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- npm test exited 0, 86 files / 1015 tests passed; dev server launched, curl -v http://localhost:3000 returned HTTP/1.1 307 Temporary Redirect to /dashboard with HSTS/CSP/XFO headers
- Model tokens used
- 75,061
- Exact commit tested
- aee1b01f4b55
- 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.
succeeded in 0ms: Time summary: - Node v22 download: ~2s - npm install (Node 20 first): ~47s - npm install (Node 22 reinstall): ~8s - Test suite (86 files, 1015 tests): ~139s - Dev server verification: ~20s total Total ~216s = 3.6 min Now let me compile the final result — just the one-line JSON the protocol requires: tokens used 75,061 Now let me compile the final result — just the one-line JSON the protocol requires:
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 4.5 minutes.
- Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
What did not, or is not known
- Only reached a running state against stand-in services, so nothing here proves it works against the real ones.
- Hit 5 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.
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 | 1/3 | Runs with mocks | 84.00 | 0.05 |
Topics (from GitHub)
crmnextjsno-codesales-pipelineself-hostedshared-inboxsupabasetypescriptwhatsappwhatsapp-business-api
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/wacrm)Questions
- Does wacrm run?
- wacrm runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 5 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test wacrm?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit aee1b01f4b55. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test wacrm?
- 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 wacrm take to install?
- 4.5 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 wacrm need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing wacrm?
- 5 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.
- Where is the evidence for wacrm?
- 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.