Yes. wg-portal runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 12 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test wg-portal?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit eb44c8c4ff12. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test wg-portal?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.18: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does wg-portal take to install?

12 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 wg-portal need a GPU?

Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.

What goes wrong when installing wg-portal?

5 things broke in the recorded run, and 5 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.

Where is the evidence for wg-portal?

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.

wg-portal

WireGuard Configuration Portal with LDAP connection

Runssource: GitHub homepageGoMITcommit eb44c8c4ff12

Go, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: ldap, ui, usermanagement, vpn, webinterface and wireguard.

wg-portal runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 12 minutes and hit 5 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

The wg-portal server builds, starts, serves the web UI and Prometheus metrics, accepts the documented default admin login, and its full Go test suite passes (283 tests, 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: $0.18 (measured)
recorded runs: 1
last tested: 2026-10-05
stars: 1,836
forks: 197
open issues: 30
watchers: 28
size: 23 MB
created: 2020-11-05
last push: 2026-09-28

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-10-05. 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.

Time lost to each failure while testing wg-portal, drawn from the recorded run — Every bar is a failure the agent recorded, with the time it cost. Drawn from this run, not from anywhere else.

What went wrong, in the agent's own words

The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.

No Go toolchain on system (need >=1.27); Debian package install blocked without root4 minutes
Bundled Node 18.19.1 fails frontend build (vite/rolldown requires node:util styleText)4 minutes
Frontend build required before Go build; go build failed on missing embedded frontend-dist assets2 minutes
Default metrics port 8787 was already bound by an unrelated root-owned process serving OpenRouter content; initial run errored 'address already in use'1 minute
Integration-tagged test Test_sqlRepo_migrate panics with nil config (pre-existing, separate from standard suite)1 minute

Install time: 12 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 15 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 5 hit, 5 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: curl -sL -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://127.0.0.1:8899/ returned 200; curl -s http://127.0.0.1:8799/metrics returned 200 Prometheus text; POST /api/v0/auth/login with [email protected]/wgportal-default returned admin user JSON (IsAdmin true); go test -short ./... exited 0 (283 passed, 0 failed); go test -race -short ./... exited 0
Model tokens used: 734,262
Exact commit tested: eb44c8c4ff12
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.

- Note: port 8787 (the default metrics port) was already bound by an unrelated root-owned process s…
tokens used
734,262
Everything is verified. Let me compile the final report.
**Summary of the mission:**
- Installed Go 1.27.0 toolchain (extracted from Ubuntu packages + Go's own toolchain download, sinc…
- Built the Vue frontend → produced `internal/app/api/core/frontend-dist/`.
- Built the Go binary `wg-portal`.
- Ran the server with a minimal config; it started, served the UI at `http://127.0.0.1:8899/` (200 …
- Ran `go test -short ./...` and `go test -race -short ./...` and full `go test ./...`: all passed …
- Found one pre-existing integration-test bug (`Test_sqlRepo_migrate` panics with nil config on the…
- Note: port 8787 (the default metrics port) was already bound by an unrelated root-owned process s…

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 12 minutes.
Recovered from all 5 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 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.

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	100.00	0.18	2026-10-05 16:30 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

ldap ui usermanagement vpn webinterface wireguard

Embed the badge

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

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

Questions

Does wg-portal run?: Yes. wg-portal runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 12 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test wg-portal?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit eb44c8c4ff12. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test wg-portal?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.18: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does wg-portal take to install?: 12 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 wg-portal need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing wg-portal?: 5 things broke in the recorded run, and 5 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
Where is the evidence for wg-portal?: 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.