Qwen3.8 27B (cloud)
1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.
Cloud reference · Chutes — qwen/qwen3.8-27b. Quality is scored with the same task bank and graders. All speed and desktop-memory measurements are excluded. Hosted precision and reasoning settings may differ from local GGUF runs.
Choose a tested configuration
Hosted model source
Chutes · Hosted FP8 (provider-reported)
This result tested a cloud endpoint, not a downloadable GGUF.Setup, memory & provenance · Hosted FP8 (provider-reported)
Hosted FP8 (provider-reported) · Not recorded of weights · openrouter · context 16384 · GPU layers unrecorded
Large · 20B and above · dense · 27.0B total
Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.
partial Hosted quality reference; not a local GGUF test. All speed and local memory measurements are excluded.
Recorded settings and thinking verification
Temperature 0 · sample index 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort medium
RAM labels describe the test computer, not this model’s memory requirement. Speed comparisons keep the 32 GB and 128 GB runs separate.
Runtime build: unrecorded · Cloud · Chutes · concurrency: 1
Thinking status: native reasoning · probe cloud-transport-v1 · scope Native reasoning condition; no verified off/on comparison. Provider-reported usage audited against 16K context. Sample indices are not provider seeds. Requested temperature recorded..
Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.
Overall across tasks
77–78 / 100
Nine categories, equally weighted · 8/9 eligible
Possible score range with unscored tasks receiving zero to full credit. Incomplete results remain unranked; this is not a confidence interval. Quality only; speed is separate. How the index works →
What does it do well?
Select a category to explore the answers. Bars show what happened on every planned task. Incorrect answers and failures to finish both earn zero; technical problems and untested tasks stay unscored.
Exact scores and task times by suite
Each suite has its own metric and fixed task bank. The balanced index weights categories equally; individual scores and evidence remain available below.
| Test suite | Reasoning · medium | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate |
| |
| Larger practical tasksMean task credit |
| |
| Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit |
| |
| Published hard problemsMean answer credit |
| |
| Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance |
| |
| Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy |
| |
| Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy |
| |
| Reading research papersAnswer token F1 |
| |
| Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate |
| |
| Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt compliance | Not planned |
Model analysis
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this hosted model at medium reasoning effort for small coding jobs and short-passage questions, including calculations and handling corrections. It also completed most larger practical tasks, making supervised project work reasonable rather than out of reach. Research-paper answers were markedly poor, however, and unfinished projects remain an important limit. These results support a scoped quality recommendation, not claims about local responsiveness or memory fit.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 16 of 16 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 15 of 16 (93.8%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 12 of 12 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
| Average score | 63.6/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit |
| Failed to finish | 3 tasks |
| Average score | 9.5/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 2 partial · 6 no credit |
Source limitation
Hosted provider/precision condition, not a local GGUF run. Cloud timing and memory are excluded from all local speed and memory comparisons. The hosted output allowance includes reasoning; it does not guarantee the separate local thinking cap. No verified thinking-on/off comparison was run.
Summary generated by GPT Astra · · Agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user
About this summary
- Analyst provider
- openai
- Generation route
- Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.163.0 · ChatGPT account
- Requested model
- gpt-6-astra
- Returned model
- Not supplied; identity is recorded from the request only.
- Exact provider snapshot
- Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
- Reasoning effort
- high
- Prompt version
- model-summary-reader-v8
- Generation time
- 2026-10-22T06:13:12.488068Z
- Review time
- 2026-10-22T06:50:51.644555+00:00
- Evidence reviewer
- Codex (agent)
- Publication authorization
- User · 2026-10-22T05:55:43.625712+00:00 · Go ahead and complete the remaining work. Spin up agents: luna, terra, sol, astra, as needed to get it done. Narrative summaries: these are the astra generated summaries? Go ahead and get those completed as well. Once all of this is done, you may push the completed result.
- Originating evidence edition
- dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
- Analysis input hash
- 895d39e24a604a58130eabc522453927322e231851e6be8973bc6f4e437d534d
- Summary revision
- summary-cc212b073848a6f202aa57f996663c05873cbf5cea10d671bc72aadc6eac440e
Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.
Good at
Small coding jobs are a clear use case: every baseline task and sampled repeat succeeded. That supports using it for finding information, editing files and fixing bugs in small projects—not assuming the same success on larger work.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 16 of 16 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Repetitions scored | 48 repetitions |
|---|---|
| Repetitions planned | 48 repetitions |
| Repetitions earning full credit | 48 repetitions |
| Distinct questions planned | 16 questions |
| Questions with all repetitions scored | 16 questions |
| Questions successful every repetition | 16 questions |
Handles short, source-backed questions well: passage calculations were all correct and passage answers were usually exact. It also passed every correction test, keeping answers when challenged incorrectly and changing them when the source changed.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 15 of 16 (93.8%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 12 of 12 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
Struggles with
Research-paper question answering is a poor use case here: answers were mostly wrong, with only limited partial matches and no fully correct responses. Strong short-passage results did not carry over to this work.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 9.5/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 2 partial · 6 no credit |
| Incorrect completed answers | 6 tasks |
| Partially correct answers | 2 tasks |
| Full-credit answers | 0 tasks |
Longer work and difficult reasoning need supervision despite success on most tested tasks. Failures to finish accounted for most unsuccessful practical tasks and puzzles, and every unsuccessful hard-problem attempt—check that a usable result actually arrives.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 63.6/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit |
| Full-credit answers | 7 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 3 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 1 tasks |
| Average score | 73.5/100 · Mean puzzle credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 34 of 34 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 25 full credit · 0 partial · 9 no credit |
| Full-credit answers | 25 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 7 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 2 tasks |
| Average score | 72.7/100 · Mean answer credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 8 full credit · 0 partial · 3 no credit |
| Full-credit answers | 8 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 3 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 0 tasks |
Worth knowing
This hosted test does not establish local speed, memory requirements or an equivalent local reasoning allowance. Native reasoning was tested at medium effort; without a verified on/off comparison, its quality and speed tradeoff remains unknown.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Hosted provider/precision condition, not a local GGUF run. Cloud timing and memory are excluded from all local speed and memory comparisons. The hosted output allowance includes reasoning; it does not guarantee the separate local thinking cap. No verified thinking-on/off comparison was run.
Exact-instruction results remain a preview because coverage is incomplete. Unassessed technical or ambiguous no-answer outcomes are separate from wrong answers and confirmed failures to finish. Some hosted trials ended without visible answers; normal provider stops do not establish the cause.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 19 of 22 (86.4%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 22 of 23 tasks scored |
Source limitation
Some suite/condition results are incomplete or ineligible; their observed scores are previews.
Source limitation
Full and partial credit follow saved task checks. Incorrect answers and confirmed failures to finish within the test budget both earn zero, but are shown separately. Provider failures, ambiguous answer-channel failures and uncertain context guards remain unscored. A task blocked before execution is untested. Saved work can earn credit without a final chat message. Cloud timing is excluded. Authorized infrastructure retries count once per scheduled trial; original failures remain in history.
Source limitation
Some hosted trials ended normally according to the provider but supplied no visible answer. Their cause is not established by the stop marker; they remain unscored, not confirmed provider outages or ordinary wrong answers.
Publication redactions limit readers’ inspection of some evidence.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.
Thinking tradeoff
No verified on/off comparison is available for this configuration and test suite. Requested modes alone do not establish a controlled thinking comparison.
Sampled repetitions
Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.
Reasoning · medium · temperature 0.6
48/48 repeats scored · 48 full-credit repeats.
16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 16 earned full credit on every repeat.
Recorded repetition conditions
- Seed 303 · requested on · native reasoning
- Seed 101 · requested on · native reasoning
- Seed 202 · requested on · native reasoning
Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes
Find information in a small project, edit files and fix bugs.
Each segment counts tasks, not credit points. Partial credit varies by task.
Scoring and fixed question bank →
This model’s answers, code and tool activity
Select a question to read the original answer, tool calls and available code changes for this configuration and thinking setting.
1–16 of 16 matching questions · 16 in this version
- Locate the Retry Limit
The user asks where the project's retry-limit setting is defined and what value it holds. This exercises locating a named setting in code and reporting both its location and value.
basic-T1 · primary - Find the Release Date
The user asks for the release date mentioned in a project notes document. This exercises reading a specified file and extracting a particular fact rather than guessing from outside knowledge.
basic-T2 · primary - Change the Retry Limit
The user asks to change the project's retry limit to a specified value. This exercises finding the relevant setting and making a focused code edit rather than merely describing the change.
basic-T3 · primary - Create an Exact One-Line File
The user asks to create a text file containing exactly one supplied line. This exercises basic file creation and precise instruction following, including avoiding extra text in the file.
basic-T4 · primary - Explain the Latest Commit
The user asks what the most recent Git commit changed in the project. This exercises inspecting recorded changes and turning them into a clear explanation of what was modified.
basic-T5 · primary - Count and Compare Python Files
The user asks how many Python files are in the application folder and which is largest. This exercises identifying relevant files, counting them, and comparing their sizes.
basic-T6 · primary - Add Readable Byte Sizes
The user asks to add a function that converts byte counts into readable sizes and remove the related TODO comment. This exercises implementing a small utility and updating the surrounding code consistently.
basic-T7 · primary - Collect TODO Comments
The user asks to find every TODO comment in the Python code and append each to the project's task list on a separate line. This combines searching across files with collecting text into an existing document.
basic-T8 · primary - Fix Code Behind a Failing Test
The user asks to investigate a failing test and fix the application code without changing the test. This exercises diagnosing a bug while respecting an explicit limit on what may be edited.
basic-H1 · primary - Rename a Function Throughout
The user asks to rename a network function and update every place in the project that uses it. This exercises tracking references across files and making a coordinated change rather than editing only the definition.
basic-H2 · primary - Find the Proxy Settings
The user asks to find a proxy configuration file somewhere under the project's parent folder and report its host and port. This exercises searching beyond the project folder and reading configuration values.
basic-H3 · primary - Locate an Error in a Log
The user asks which error code appears in a long event log and on which line. This exercises finding a specific entry in a large file and reporting its precise location.
basic-H4 · primary - Append a Final Task
The user asks to append a supplied release-related task as the final line of an existing task list. This exercises preserving existing content while adding exact text in the requested position.
basic-H5 · primary - Calculate Total Retry Waiting
The user asks for the total time a network function spends sleeping when all attempts fail, worked out from the code. This exercises following retry logic and adding the delays along that failure path.
basic-H6 · primary - Document Every Command-Line Option
The user asks for a project readme listing every command-line option with its help text. This exercises discovering the program's available options and transferring that information into complete, source-grounded documentation.
basic-H7 · primary - Undo a Commit by Editing
The user asks to undo the latest Git commit's change by editing the file directly, without using Git to make changes. This exercises understanding a previous edit and reversing it under a method constraint.
basic-H8 · primary
Suggested comparisons
These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.
No matching suggestion is available for this selection.
Tested weights
Hosted FP8 (provider-reported) · Not recorded
Chutes · recorded source
Explore the answers
Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.