Test file creation and code quality across models.

โœ“All Passed
February 11, 2026 at 02:53 PM๐Ÿ“„ test_basic.py4 tests61.7s๐Ÿงช $0.4209๐Ÿค– $0.0262๐Ÿ’ฐ $0.4471
๐Ÿค–AI Analysis

๐ŸŽฏ Executive Summary

Metric Value
Best Configuration coder-gpt-5.2 / refactorer-gpt-5.2 ๐Ÿ†
Pass Rate 4/4 tests (100%)
Total Cost $0.447 (gpt-5.2: $0.126, claude-opus-4.5: $0.321)
Avg Duration gpt-5.2: 16.8s ยท claude-opus-4.5: 14.0s
Recommendation ๐ŸŸข Deploy gpt-5.2

Verdict: Both models complete all tasks, but gpt-5.2 delivers the same correctness at ~60% lower cost, making it the clear default.

Configuration Scorecard

Agent Model Pass Rate Cost Avg Duration Verdict
coder-gpt-5.2 + refactorer-gpt-5.2 gpt-5.2 2/2 (100%) $0.126 16.8s ๐Ÿ† Best
coder-claude-opus-4.5 + refactorer-claude-opus-4.5 claude-opus-4.5 2/2 (100%) $0.321 14.0s โš ๏ธ Costly

โŒ Failure Analysis

Results Matrix

Test gpt-5.2 claude-opus-4.5 Failure Type
Create calculator module โœ… โœ… โ€”
Refactor existing code โœ… โœ… โ€”

No failures observed. All agents followed instructions and used appropriate tools.

๐Ÿค– Model Comparison

Capability gpt-5.2 claude-opus-4.5
File creation โœ… Correct โœ… Correct
Refactoring quality โœ… High (backward compatibility preserved) โœ… High (clean rewrite)
Tool selection โœ… Precise โœ… Precise
Instruction adherence โœ… Exact โœ… Exact
Cost per test ~$0.063 ~$0.161
Avg duration 16.8s 14.0s

gpt-5.2

Verdict: Best balance of correctness and cost; ideal default for coding-agent tests.

Strengths: - Preserved backward compatibility during refactor (f() wrapper) - Clean, typed implementations with minimal verbosity - Lowest cost tier among passing models

Weaknesses: - Slightly slower than Claude on refactor task

claude-opus-4.5

Verdict: High-quality outputs, but not cost-effective for these tasks.

Strengths: - Clear docstrings and readable refactors - Fast execution on refactoring

Weaknesses: - ~2.5ร— higher cost with no quality advantage - Removes backward compatibility in refactor (acceptable here, but riskier generally)

๐Ÿ”ง Tool Usage

Tool Proficiency Matrix

Tool gpt-5.2 Calls Claude Calls Success
report_intent 2 2 โœ… 4/4
create 1 1 โœ… 2/2
view 1 1 โœ… 2/2
edit 1 1 โœ… 2/2

Efficiency Analysis

Metric Value Assessment
Avg tools per test 2.0 โœ… Efficient
Unnecessary calls 0 โœ… None
Failed tool calls 0 โœ… None

๐Ÿ’ก Optimizations

Priority Change Expected Impact
๐ŸŸก Recommended Standardize refactor instruction to require backward compatibility Prevent breaking changes
๐ŸŸข Nice to have Remove duplicate assistant confirmations Minor token reduction

Details:

  1. Recommended: Enforce backward compatibility
  2. Current: Claude refactor removes original function f
  3. Change: When refactoring, preserve original public functions as wrappers unless explicitly told to remove them.

  4. Impact: Safer refactors across codebases; avoids subtle regressions

  5. Nice to have: Reduce redundant confirmations

  6. Current: Agents repeat completion messages
  7. Change: After completing a task, provide a single concise confirmation.
  8. Impact: Slight cost and verbosity reduction

Final Recommendation: Deploy gpt-5.2 as the default coding agent; reserve claude-opus-4.5 only when marginal speed gains justify significantly higher cost.

๐Ÿ† Agent Leaderboard

AgentTestsPass RateTokensCostDuration
๐Ÿฅ‡
coder-gpt-5.2
1/1100%0$0.03939.8s
๐Ÿฅˆ
refactorer-gpt-5.2
1/1100%0$0.086423.9s
๐Ÿฅ‰
coder-claude-opus-4.5
1/1100%0$0.128111.2s
4
refactorer-claude-opus-4.5
1/1100%0$0.193416.7s
Compare:(Click to swap agents)

๐Ÿ“‹ Test Results

4 / 4 tests
๐Ÿ”—Test file creation and code quality across models.(2 tests)
1/1
1/1
โ–ผ
โœ…Agent creates a module and its test file with working code.
Total 0 tokยทTotal $0.0393ยทฮ” +0%ยทฮ” +0%ยทฮ” +0%
coder-gpt-5.2:โœ…9.8s
refactorer-gpt-5.2:โ€”
โœ…Agent reads existing code and refactors it.
Total 0 tokยทTotal $0.0864ยทฮ” +0%ยทฮ” +0%ยทฮ” +0%
coder-gpt-5.2:โ€”
refactorer-gpt-5.2:โœ…23.9s