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
73.2 / 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 setup for small project edits and source-backed questions, rather than unattended research or longer tool-driven work. With thinking off, it completed every small-coding test and usually handled source-backed answers correctly. Larger tasks had mixed outcomes, and research-paper answers were particularly weak. For everyday coding, thinking off gave the better speed–quality balance in these runs: enabling it added time without improving task success. That success on small edits does not establish competence on larger projects.
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
2026-10-12T06:03:06.167863Z
Review time
2026-10-22T05:55:43.648219+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.
Small-project edits and bug fixes are a good use case with thinking off. All baseline tasks passed, and almost all sampled reruns passed; that success does not extend automatically to larger projects.
With thinking off, it usually kept correct source-backed answers when challenged and updated them when the source changed—a useful fit for question answering tied to a reference text.
Research-paper answers were extremely weak with thinking off. Do not rely on this mode for paper-based question answering without checking answers against the text.
Larger tool-driven tasks had mixed outcomes in both modes. Supervise these workflows and check that the requested files and results are present before stopping.
Example 1: Larger practical tasks Thinking off. 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 →
Should you enable thinking?
Leave thinking off for everyday coding: paired tests showed unchanged task success with longer average task time when enabled. The same no-gain, extra-wait tradeoff applied to strict instruction following.
Enable thinking selectively for research-paper questions: answer matching improved substantially, though results remained limited and took longer. It was not a general reasoning upgrade—puzzle scores fell while average time increased.
Evidence for this judgment
Reading research papers · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on
6.3/100 · Answer token F1 → 42.3/100 · Answer token F1
Some examples have publication redactions, limiting what readers can inspect.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
One same-budget retry after context exhaustion. A second context limit is failed to answer (zero task-completion credit), not an incorrect submitted answer. Answer-only averages exclude these no-answer outcomes; completed retry answers enter the normal scoring path. This follow-up is selected after observing failures.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation One same-budget retry after context exhaustion. A second context limit is failed to answer (zero task-completion credit), not an incorrect submitted answer. Answer-only averages exclude these no-answer outcomes; completed retry answers enter the normal scoring path. This follow-up is selected after observing failures.
One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.
What changed in these results
One same-budget retry after context exhaustion. A second context limit is failed to answer (zero task-completion credit), not an incorrect submitted answer. Answer-only averages exclude these no-answer outcomes; completed retry answers enter the normal scoring path. This follow-up is selected after observing failures.
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 13.0 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
+13.0s
Mean task time, off → on
14.3s → 27.3s
Median task time, off → on
12.8s → 22.7s
Median of paired time changes
+8.6s
Total added task time
+208.2s
Ratio of summed times, on / off
1.9×
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 off · Complete compared coverage