web-maker
A blazing fast & offline frontend code editor
Runs with mockssource: GitHubhomepageJavaScriptMITcommit b1cb6071eb99
JavaScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: chrome extension, chrome tabs, code editor, offline, playground and web.
web-maker runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 19 minutes and hit 6 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
Web Maker builds successfully, serves its built assets via HTTP, and all 19 Jest unit tests pass across 3 test suites (footer, fileUtils, layout-parameter).
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 92 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.
- Cannot find module preact-cli/babel - [email protected] npm package is missing its babel/ directory5 minutes
- layout-parameter.test.js failures from jsdom location.search navigation side effects5 minutes
- Can't resolve monaco-editor/esm/vs/editor/editor.api.js - y-monaco cannot resolve due to [email protected] exports map4 minutes
- .babelrc circular config load caused Babel validation error in Jest2 minutes
- Cannot find module preact-render-spy for fileUtils.test.js2 minutes
- Cypress tests picked up by Jest due to missing testPathIgnorePatterns entry1 minute
- Install time
- 19 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 20 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 6 hit, 6 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- npm test exited 0, 3 suites passed, 19 tests passed. npm run build (preact build) exited 0 producing build/ directory. python3 -m http.server serving build/ returned HTTP 200 on curl
- Model tokens used
- 145,536
- Exact commit tested
- b1cb6071eb99
- 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.
'errors': errors,
'test_depth': 'tier2_mock',
'notes': 'Node.js v18.19.1 is below the required >=20, so --engine-strict=false was needed for …
'verified_how': 'npm test exited 0, 3 suites passed, 19 tests passed. npm run build (preact bui…
'final_state': 'Web Maker builds successfully, serves its built assets via HTTP, and all 19 Jes…
}
print(json.dumps(result))
\"" in /work/repo
succeeded in 0ms:
{"install_succeeded": true, "launch_succeeded": true, "install_minutes": 19, "errors": [{"msg": "Ca…
tokens used
145,536Replay 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 19 minutes.
- Recovered from all 6 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- 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.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Run history
| tested by | attempt | outcome | score | cost USD | when |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Runs with mocks | 92.00 | 0.06 |
Topics (from GitHub)
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/web-maker)Questions
- Does web-maker run?
- web-maker runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 19 minutes, hitting 6 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test web-maker?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit b1cb6071eb99. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test web-maker?
- 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 web-maker take to install?
- 19 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 web-maker need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing web-maker?
- 6 things broke in the recorded run, and 6 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- Where is the evidence for web-maker?
- 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.