wordcraft
An open-source, clean-room reimplementation of Microsoft Word in pure Rust
Runssource: GitHubhomepageRustApache-2.0commit 37318985b570
Rust, Apache-2.0 licensed.
wordcraft runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 68 minutes and hit 1 error and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
WordCraft 0.5.0 (dev) builds and runs on Linux x86_64 with software-gl rendering on Xvfb. The desktop app opens the sample document and listens on the control channel at port 7981. The CLI converts between docx/pdf/png/odt/rtf/html/md/tex/txt/json formats, reads document metadata, and renders pages. 646 tests pass across engine/doc/docx crates; 3 pre-existing layout tests fail.
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, 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.
- 3 pre-existing layout test failures
- Install time
- 68 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 72 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 1 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- wordcraft --version: 'wordcraft 0.5.0 (dev)'. wordcraft --sample --control 7981: started on Xvfb, listening on port 7981. wordcraft-cli info sample.rs: 10 pages, 219 paragraphs. wordcraft-cli render: 1224x1584 valid PNG. wordcraft-cli convert: valid PDF-1.7 produced. cargo test --release -p wordcraft-engine: 340 passed. cargo test --release -p wordcraft-doc: 106 passed. cargo test --release -p wordcraft-docx: 5 passed. cargo test --release -p wordcraft-layout: 195 passed, 3 pre-existing failures.
- Model tokens used
- 109,369
- Exact commit tested
- 37318985b570
- 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.
- layout: 195 passed, 3 failed (pre-existing: `deleted_text_adds_no_line_break_opportunity_without_…
- Other crates: 0 tests each
Total: 646 passed, 3 pre-existing failures.
**3 pre-existing test failures** in layout: 2 are assertion mismatches about line-break opportuniti…
The layout failures use `unwrap()` and `panic!()` which violate the project's "never crash" policy …
Let me now produce the final result line.
exec
/bin/sh -lc "echo '{\"install_succeeded\":true,\"launch_succeeded\":true,\"install_minutes\":68.0,\…
exited 2 in 0ms:
/bin/sh: 1: Syntax error: "(" unexpected
tokens used
109,369Replay 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 1 error 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 68 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 10 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 11 Rust projects Argusic has installed and timed, wordcraft was the 11th fastest to reach a running state, and 10 of 11 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.
Run history
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/wordcraft)Questions
- Does wordcraft run?
- Yes. wordcraft runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 68 minutes, hitting 1 error on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test wordcraft?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 37318985b570. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test wordcraft?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.27: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does wordcraft take to install?
- 68 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 wordcraft need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing wordcraft?
- 1 thing broke in the recorded run, and 1 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- How does wordcraft compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 11 Rust projects Argusic has installed and timed, wordcraft was the 11th fastest to reach a running state, and 10 of 11 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for wordcraft?
- 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.