CHECK THE CHECKER
Results. With their limits.
These are selected engineering observations, not a general accuracy score.
What was measured
A frozen plan assessed 33 builder-labeled claims across Express, Chalk, Flask, Requests, Hono and Zod. Each repository used a fixed commit and explicit file hints. The later run completed six requests and matched 32 expectations. This measures selected assessment cases, with discovery guided by the builder.
Failures, baseline and replay
The earlier attempt completed 4/6 requests and matched 19/33 planned expectations. On the later run, raw model answers matched 33/33; the validated pipeline matched 32/33. A narrow declaration check addressed the lost case. Replaying the recorded answers through the corrected validator matched 33/33, with no new model calls. The original live result remains 32/33.
A subsequent fresh browser request failed at provider capacity. Recorded reports remain inspectable without another AI request; a new assessment still needs the provider to respond.
What remains unknown
There are no independent testers yet. These observations do not establish broad semantic accuracy, reliable provider availability, time saved, adoption or an advantage over competing tools.
Source inspection cannot certify that tests ran, a deployment works or a feature behaves correctly. A report signature authenticates this service’s assessment; it does not make the conclusion correct.
← Back to workspace