xplr
A hackable, minimal, fast TUI file explorer
Runssource: GitHubhomepageRustMITcommit d96991f6b1d1
Rust, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: cli, command line, console, developer tools, file explorer, file launcher, file manager and filesystem.
xplr runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 33.5 minutes and hit 5 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
xplr v1.1.1 builds, all 22 tests pass, and the binary runs correctly in the container.
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.
- No C compiler or linker available20 minutes
- No Rust toolchain installed3 minutes
- Missing shared libraries (libisl, libmpc, libmpfr) for gcc-14 cc13 minutes
- Linker ld couldn't find libbfd-2.47-system.so, libctf.so.0, libsframe.so.33 minutes
- No make command available2 minutes
- Install time
- 34 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 34 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 5 hit, 5 fixed with no human help
- Model tokens used
- 796,611
- Exact commit tested
- d96991f6b1d1
- Container image
- sha256:4c3d41857be3
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.
- How the result was proved
- runs before 2026-09-07 did not record the command used to check the result
- 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.
succeeded in 0ms: Start: 16:33 (approx) Thu Sep 3 17:06:32 UTC 2026 Current: 1788455192, Start: 1788453180 About 33.5 minutes elapsed. Let me calculate precisely. Time started: roughly 16:33 UTC (first command ran at 16:32:xx). Current: 17:06:32. That's about 33… Here's the ARGUSIC_RESULT: tokens used 796,611 About 33.5 minutes elapsed. Let me calculate precisely. Time started: roughly 16:33 UTC (first command ran at 16:32:xx). Current: 17:06:32. That's about 33… Here's the ARGUSIC_RESULT:
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 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.
- Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What did not, or is not known
- Took 33.5 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 24 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
Of the 25 cli projects Argusic has installed and timed, xplr was the 24th fastest to reach a running state, and 23 of 25 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.
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 | 2/3 | Runs | 100.00 | 0.19 | |
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Ran out of time | 0.00 | 0.27 |
Topics (from GitHub)
clicommand-lineconsoledeveloper-toolsfile-explorerfile-launcherfile-managerfilesystemlauncherproductivityraspberry-pirustterminalterminal-basedtuivimwsl
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/xplr)Questions
- Does xplr run?
- Yes. xplr runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 34 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test xplr?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit d96991f6b1d1. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test xplr?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.19: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does xplr take to install?
- 33.5 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 xplr need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing xplr?
- 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.
- How does xplr compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 25 cli projects Argusic has installed and timed, xplr was the 24th fastest to reach a running state, and 23 of 25 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for xplr?
- All 2 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.