Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
57 lines (44 loc) · 3 KB

File metadata and controls

57 lines (44 loc) · 3 KB

Benchmark results

Empirical solve rates on Aider's polyglot benchmark (Exercism exercises with hidden test suites). misterdev drives each stub to a solution and grades by running the exercise's real tests — pass@1, gate-verified. Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6. Numbers are from this project's own runs; reproduce with python -m evaluation.polyglot.

Per-language (10-exercise samples)

Language Solved Rate Notes
JavaScript 9 / 10 90% jest; the npm install + babel prep is handled by the harness
Python 8 / 10 80% pytest
Rust 7 / 10 → higher 70%+ cargo; the misses were harness artifacts, since fixed (see below)

The remaining misses are scattered, exercise-specific (beer-song, dot-dsl, complex-numbers each fail in only one language and pass in the others) — the normal long tail of a broadly-capable agent, not a systemic gap.

Continuous stress run (in progress)

A stop-at-first-failure sweep across rust/python/js at --budget 2/exercise:

20 / 20 solved, 0 failures, $6.30 and counting — including every exercise that was previously "hard":

Exercise Result Note
rust/bowling the 10th-frame scoring kata; earlier failure was a harness false-positive (a guard rejecting Type::method), now fixed
python/bowling · javascript/bowling same kata, other languages
rust/forth a stack-based interpreter; passes despite being at the capability edge (stochastic, not a wall)
rust/decimal arbitrary-precision arithmetic; earlier failure was an approach/harness issue, now resolved
rust/alphametics constraint solving (~24 min, $0.65 — the priciest)
+ affine-cipher, acronym, beer-song, book-store, connect, dominoes, dot-dsl, bottle-song, binary … across all three languages

Per-exercise cost: python/js katas ~$0.15–0.28, rust ~$0.14–1.26 (compile-heavy).

What the numbers show

  • The three exercises that dominated debugging (bowling, forth, decimal) were harness artifacts and search variance, not capability ceilings — each now passes, and bowling/forth pass in multiple languages. This is the empirical basis for the path-to-100 thesis: with a verifier, correctness is a search, not a one-shot wall.
  • Every solve is gate-verified — the exercise's own hidden tests are the finish line, not the model's say-so.

Honest scope

  • These are pass@1 on Exercism-style katas — single-file, well-specified. They demonstrate the loop end-to-end across languages; they are not repo-scale (SWE-bench) results.
  • Swift and C# have full static tooling (guidance, contracts, LSP, a validation harness at evaluation/native/) but no published solve numbers yet — the harness exists; the run is the next step.
  • Reproduce any number: python -m evaluation.polyglot --languages python --limit 10 --model anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6.