webmagic
A scalable web crawler framework for Java.
Runssource: GitHubJavaApache-2.0commit 67816a19d68a
Java, Apache-2.0 licensed. The project labels itself: crawler, framework, java and scraping.
webmagic runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 6 minutes and hit 2 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
All 8 Maven modules (webmagic-core, extension, scripts, selenium, saxon, samples, coverage) compile and their tests pass with 0 failures. The library is fully functional as a Java 11 crawler framework.
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.
- JDK 11 not installed in container. Install via apt fails due to no root.2 minutes
- Maven not installed in container.2 minutes
- Install time
- 6 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 41 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 2 hit, 2 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- mvn test -pl webmagic-core -am exited 0: 61 tests run, 0 failures, 3 skipped. mvn test -pl webmagic-extension -am exited 0: 27 tests run, 0 failures, 5 skipped. mvn test -pl webmagic-saxon -am exited 0: 9 tests run, 0 failures, 2 skipped. All other modules similarly passed.
- Model tokens used
- 174,591
- Exact commit tested
- 67816a19d68a
- 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.
} } Now I have all the information I need. Let me compile the final report. **Build:** All 8 modules compile successfully. **Tests:** All modules pass — core (61 tests, 0 fail, 3 skipped), extension (27 tests, 0 fail, 5 sk… **Root cause fix:** No code fixes were needed. The only gap was missing JDK and Maven binaries, res… tokens used 174,591 Now I have all the information I need. Let me compile the final report. **Build:** All 8 modules compile successfully. **Tests:** All modules pass — core (61 tests, 0 fail, 3 skipped), extension (27 tests, 0 fail, 5 sk… **Root cause fix:** No code fixes were needed. The only gap was missing JDK and Maven binaries, res…
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 2 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 6 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 4 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 5 crawler projects Argusic has installed and timed, webmagic was the 5th fastest to reach a running state, and 5 of 5 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 6 minutes after the clone.
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
Topics (from GitHub)
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/webmagic)Questions
- Does webmagic run?
- Yes. webmagic runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 6 minutes, hitting 2 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test webmagic?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 67816a19d68a. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test webmagic?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.09: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does webmagic take to install?
- 6 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 webmagic need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing webmagic?
- 2 things broke in the recorded run, and 2 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- How does webmagic compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 5 crawler projects Argusic has installed and timed, webmagic was the 5th fastest to reach a running state, and 5 of 5 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for webmagic?
- 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.