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 · Local · test machine with 32 GB RAM · concurrency: 1
Thinking status: verified · probe 1 · scope Saved profile-level probe; exact historical template/build scope is not fully recorded..
Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.
Overall across tasks
80.3 / 100
Nine categories, equally weighted · 9/9 eligible
Complete coverage for this setup. 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.
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this tested Gemma configuration for small project edits and longer practical tasks with thinking off. It passed all the small coding tasks and completed most larger tasks, so its usefulness extends beyond toy edits. Small coding tasks had a median total time of 10.6 seconds on this test machine—a useful balance of responsiveness and successful work. Research-paper answering was poor, however; extracting dependable answers from papers is a clear boundary.
Original analysis generated by GPT Astra · · Edited by Codex; agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user
About this summary
Codex reviewed this assessment against a newer evidence edition. The original analyst, generation date and source draft remain recorded separately from the editorial revision.
Analyst provider
openai
Generation route
Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.162.1 · 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-v6
Generation time
2026-10-12T05:13:56.630216Z
Review time
2026-10-22T05:55:43.646587+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.
Handles small project edits and longer tool-driven work well with thinking off. It completed most larger practical tasks, making it worth considering for building small apps and investigating files—not just isolated coding exercises.
Keeps source-backed answers when challenged and updates them when the source changes. With thinking off, it also solved most logic-and-number puzzles, showing useful reasoning beyond straightforward information lookup.
Research-paper answering was poor in both modes, not merely a citation-format problem: answer matching scores were low. Check answers against the paper yourself rather than treating this as a dependable research assistant.
Can get stuck revisiting a problem and omit the final answer. In the examples checked, thinking-enabled puzzle and formula-matching responses were cut off mid-analysis, leaving the requested result unfinished.
Evidence for this judgment
Example 3: Published hard problems Thinking on. Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Example 4: Published hard problems Thinking on. Final result: 10.0/100 · Mean answer credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Should you enable thinking?
Start with thinking off for coding and practical work. Thinking slowed both, left baseline small-edit success unchanged, and worsened larger-task results. Separate sampled coding repetitions slightly favored thinking, so the default is a speed–quality choice, not an absolute rule.
Consider thinking for passage questions or strict wording and formatting requirements: both improved, at the cost of longer waits. These gains concern short-passage answers and instruction compliance, not research-paper reading.
Publication redactions, withheld artifacts and unavailable components limit reader inspection. Paper exports provide source links, not full text; exported project changes do not represent the original starting workspace.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
Example 1: Larger practical tasks Thinking on. Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Example 5: Larger practical tasks Thinking off. Final result: full credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Example 2: Everyday coding tasks Thinking on. Final result: full credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Model-authored project checks were not independently executed for this summary. The file-search failure lacks an explained criterion, and launcher checks do not establish that the desktop application ran.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
Example 1: Larger practical tasks Thinking on. Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Example 5: Larger practical tasks Thinking off. Final result: full credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Example 2: Everyday coding tasks Thinking on. Final result: full credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion. View the question and recorded answer →
Both modes earned full credit on every matched question. These matched results leave no measured quality headroom; unmatched questions are not covered by this observation.
Thinking offMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking onMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking on took 46.0 seconds more per matched timed question, on average.
All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurement
Recorded result
Average credit, off → on
100.0% → 100.0%
Mean paired credit change
0.0 percentage points
Question outcomes
0 improved · 16 unchanged · 0 worse
Mean added task time
+46.0s
Mean task time, off → on
17.9s → 63.9s
Median task time, off → on
10.6s → 23.4s
Median of paired time changes
+14.5s
Total added task time
+736.1s
Ratio of summed times, on / off
3.6×
Quality and timing can cover different subsets. Median paired change is calculated per question; it is not the difference between the two medians. Task time includes tools and grading.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Filters change this list, not the fixed scoring denominator. Search currently covers question IDs, titles and available task explanations. Focus a control to load prompt/outcome search where this edition provides it.
Suggested comparisons
These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.
Thinking on versus off
Verified requested on/off conditions of the same configuration, matched on the recorded test protocol.
Requested thinking on · Complete compared coverage