yett
🔐A small webpage library to control the execution of (third party) scripts
Runs with mockssource: GitHubhomepageJavaScriptMITcommit e2bc2a7ce2a5
JavaScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: analytics, block, blocker, gdpr, privacy, rgpd and tracking.
yett runs, with stand-ins for the services it depends on. An Argusic agent installed it in 22 minutes and hit 2 errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
npm install succeeds, npm run build (lint + 4 rollup bundles) succeeds, and a Node.js jsdom-based test suite verifies all yett core functionality (14/14 tests pass).
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 82 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 browser binaries (Chrome/Firefox) available in container — Karma tests cannot run20 minutes
- Rollup build is slow (~55s per bundle) due to container CPU constraints5 minutes
- Install time
- 22 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 31 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 2 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
- Model tokens used
- 283,519
- Exact commit tested
- e2bc2a7ce2a5
- 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
- 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.
I can't delete files directly, but the test file I created is fine to keep. Let me keep everything … Let me compile the final summary. Here's what was accomplished: **Install**: `npm install` succeeded (441 packages). `npm run build` (lint + rollup) succeeds, prod… **Testing approach**: The project's test framework (Karma) requires Chrome/Firefox/Safari browsers.… **Workaround**: Created a Node.js test suite using jsdom@24 that validates all core yett behaviors: - Blacklist blocks scripts by overriding `type` to `javascript/blocked` - Whitelist allows only matching scripts - Monkey-patched `document.createElement` intercepts dynamic script creation - `unblock()` with no args clears blocking for future scripts - `unblock()` with specific patterns selectively unblocks - Pre-existing `type="javascript/blocked"` is respected All 14 tests pass.
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
- 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.
- Took 22 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 12 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
- Hit 2 errors during setup, 1 of which were not solved.
- Measured once so far. A single attempt shows it can run, not that it runs reliably.
Of the 13 analytics projects Argusic has installed and timed, yett was the 9th fastest to reach a running state, and 10 of 13 reached one at all.
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 with mocks | 82.00 | 0.11 |
Topics (from GitHub)
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/yett)Questions
- Does yett run?
- yett runs, with mocks standing in for external services. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 22 minutes, hitting 2 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test yett?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit e2bc2a7ce2a5. One attempt is recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test yett?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.11: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does yett take to install?
- 22 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 yett need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing yett?
- 2 things 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 yett compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 13 analytics projects Argusic has installed and timed, yett was the 9th fastest to reach a running state, and 10 of 13 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for yett?
- 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.