johan--/claudette-agent.installation.md

20 changes: 10 additions & 10 deletions 20 claudette-agent.installation.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -20,21 +20,21 @@
		### Prompts and metrics included in the abstract so you can benchmark yourself!
		[Coding Output Benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-coding-md)
		[Coding Output Benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/fbb78126d27b2d813a6c6e82dd9efcf3#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-coding-md)
		[Research Output Benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-research-md)
		[Research Output Benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/fbb78126d27b2d813a6c6e82dd9efcf3#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-research-md)
		[Memory continuation Benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-memories-md)
		[Memory continuation Benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/fbb78126d27b2d813a6c6e82dd9efcf3#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-memories-md)
		[Large scale project interruption benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-resume-large-scale-md)
		[Large scale project interruption benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/fbb78126d27b2d813a6c6e82dd9efcf3#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-resume-large-scale-md)
		[Milti-file memory continuation benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-continuation-multi-mem-md)
		[Milti-file memory continuation benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/fbb78126d27b2d813a6c6e82dd9efcf3#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-continuation-multi-mem-md)
		[Multi-day Endurance benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-endurance-md)
		[Multi-day Endurance benchmark](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/fbb78126d27b2d813a6c6e82dd9efcf3#file-x-gpt5-benchmark-endurance-md)
		## When to Use Each Version
		### **claudette-auto.md** (484 lines, ~3,555 tokens)
		### **claudette-auto.md** v5.2.1 (484 lines, ~3,555 tokens)
		- ✅ Most tasks and complex projects
		- ✅ Enterprise repositories
		- ✅ Long conversations (event-driven context drift prevention)
		@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
		https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-auto-md
		### **claudette-condensed.md** (373 lines, ~2,625 tokens) ⭐ **RECOMMENDED**
		### **claudette-condensed.md** v5.2.1 (373 lines, ~2,625 tokens) ⭐ **RECOMMENDED**
		- ✅ Standard coding tasks
		- ✅ Best balance of features vs token count
		- ✅ GPT-4/5, Claude Sonnet/Opus
		@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-
		https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md
		### **claudette-compact.md** (259 lines, ~1,500 tokens)
		### **claudette-compact.md** v5.2.1 (259 lines, ~1,500 tokens)
		- ✅ Token-constrained environments
		- ✅ Lower-reasoning LLMs (GPT-3.5, smaller models)
		- ✅ Simple, straightforward tasks
		@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-
		https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md
		### **claudette-original.md** (703 lines, ~4,860 tokens)
		### **claudette-original.md** v5.2.1 (703 lines, ~4,860 tokens)
		```
		❌ - Not optimized. I do not suggest using anymore
		✅ - improvements/modifications from beast-mode

6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions 6 claudette-auto.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
		---
		description: Claudette Coding Agent v5.2 (Optimized for Autonomous Execution)
		tools: ['editFiles', 'runNotebooks', 'search', 'new', 'runCommands', 'runTasks', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI', 'problems', 'changes', 'testFailure', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'extensions']
		description: Claudette Coding Agent v5.2.1 (Optimized for Autonomous Execution)
		tools: ['edit', 'runNotebooks', 'search', 'new', 'runCommands', 'runTasks', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI', 'problems', 'changes', 'testFailure', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'extensions', 'todos']
		---
		# Claudette Coding Agent v5.2
		# Claudette Coding Agent v5.2.1
		## CORE IDENTITY

6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions 6 claudette-compact.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
		---
		description: Claudette Coding Agent v5.2 (Compact)
		tools: ['editFiles', 'runNotebooks', 'search', 'new', 'runCommands', 'runTasks', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI', 'problems', 'changes', 'testFailure', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'extensions']
		description: Claudette Coding Agent v5.2.1 (Compact)
		tools: ['edit', 'runNotebooks', 'search', 'new', 'runCommands', 'runTasks', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI', 'problems', 'changes', 'testFailure', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'extensions', 'todos']
		---
		# Claudette v5.2
		# Claudette v5.2.1
		## IDENTITY
		Enterprise agent. Solve problems end-to-end. Work until done. Be conversational and concise. Before any task, list your sub-steps.

6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions 6 claudette-condensed.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
		---
		description: Claudette Coding Agent v5.2 (Condensed)
		tools: ['editFiles', 'runNotebooks', 'search', 'new', 'runCommands', 'runTasks', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI', 'problems', 'changes', 'testFailure', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'extensions']
		description: Claudette Coding Agent v5.2.1 (Condensed)
		tools: ['edit', 'runNotebooks', 'search', 'new', 'runCommands', 'runTasks', 'usages', 'vscodeAPI', 'problems', 'changes', 'testFailure', 'openSimpleBrowser', 'fetch', 'githubRepo', 'extensions', 'todos']
		---
		# Claudette Coding Agent v5.2
		# Claudette Coding Agent v5.2.1
		## CORE IDENTITY

147 changes: 0 additions & 147 deletions 147 x-GPT5-benchmark-coding.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,147 +0,0 @@
		# 🧪 LLM Coding Agent Benchmark — Medium-Complexity Engineering Task
		## Experiment Abstract
		This experiment compares five coding-focused LLM agent configurations designed for software engineering tasks.
		The goal is to determine which produces the most **useful, correct, and efficient** output for a moderately complex coding assignment.
		### Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — by cyberofficial
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — by burkeholland
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — by orneryd
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — by orneryd (lean variant)
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — by orneryd (ultra-light variant)
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md
		---
		## Methodology
		### Task Prompt (Medium Complexity)
		> **Implement a simple REST API endpoint in Express.js that serves cached product data from an in-memory store.**
		> The endpoint should:
		> - Fetch product data (simulated or static list)
		> - Cache the data for performance
		> - Return JSON responses
		> - Handle errors gracefully
		> - Include at least one example of cache invalidation or timeout
		### Model Used
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 (simulated benchmark environment)
		- **Temperature:** 0.3 (favoring deterministic, correct code)
		- **Context Window:** 128k tokens
		- **Evaluation Focus (weighted):**
		1. 🔍 Code Quality and Correctness — 45%
		2. ⚙️ Token Efficiency (useful output per token) — 35%
		3. 💬 Explanatory Depth / Reasoning Clarity — 20%
		### Measurement Criteria
		Each agent’s full system prompt and output were analyzed for:
		- **Prompt Token Count** — setup/preamble size
		- **Output Token Count** — completion size
		- **Useful Code Ratio** — proportion of code vs meta text
		- **Overall Weighted Score** — normalized to 10-point scale
		---
		## Agent Profiles
		| Agent | Description | Est. Preamble Tokens | Typical Output Tokens | Intended Use |
		|--------|--------------|----------------------|----------------------|---------------|
		| 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** | Autonomous, multi-phase, memory-heavy project orchestrator | ~4,000 | ~1,400 | Fully autonomous / large projects |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | “Go full throttle” verbose reasoning, deep explanation | ~1,600 | ~1,100 | Educational / exploratory coding |
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | Balanced structured code agent | ~2,000 | ~900 | General engineering assistant |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | Leaner variant, drops meta chatter | ~1,100 | ~700 | Fast iterative dev work |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | Ultra-light preamble for small tasks | ~700 | ~500 | Micro-tasks / inline edits |
		---
		## Benchmark Results
		### Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Code Quality | Token Efficiency | Explanatory Depth | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|---------------|------------------|-------------------|------------------|
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | 9.5 | 9 | 7.5 | **9.2** |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | 9.3 | 9.5 | 6.5 | **9.0** |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | 8.8 | **10** | 5.5 | **8.7** |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | 9 | 7 | **10** | **8.7** |
		| 🧠 **Extensive Mode** | 8 | 5 | 9 | **7.3** |
		### Efficiency Metrics (Estimated)
		| Agent | Total Tokens (Prompt + Output) | Approx. Lines of Code | Code Lines per 1K Tokens |
		|--------|--------------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------|
		| Claudette Auto | 2,900 | 60 | **20.7** |
		| Claudette Condensed | 1,800 | 55 | **30.5** |
		| Claudette Compact | 1,200 | 40 | **33.3** |
		| BeastMode | 2,700 | 50 | 18.5 |
		| Extensive Mode | 5,400 | 40 | 7.4 |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Strengths:** Balanced, consistent, high-quality Express code; good error handling.
		- **Weaknesses:** Slightly less commentary than BeastMode but far more concise.
		- **Ideal Use:** Everyday engineering, refactoring, and feature implementation.
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Strengths:** Nearly identical correctness with smaller token footprint.
		- **Weaknesses:** Explanations more terse; assumes developer competence.
		- **Ideal Use:** High-throughput or production environments with context limits.
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Strengths:** Blazing fast and efficient; no fluff.
		- **Weaknesses:** Minimal guidance, weaker error descriptions.
		- **Ideal Use:** Inline edits, small CLI-based tasks, or when using multi-agent chains.
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Strengths:** Deep reasoning, rich explanations, test scaffolding, best learning output.
		- **Weaknesses:** Verbose, slower, less token-efficient.
		- **Ideal Use:** Code review, mentorship, or documentation generation.
		### 🧠 Extensive Mode
		- **Strengths:** Autonomous, detailed, exhaustive coverage.
		- **Weaknesses:** Token-heavy, slow, over-structured; not suited for interactive workflows.
		- **Ideal Use:** Long-form, offline agent runs or “fire-and-forget” project execution.
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|--------|----------|
		| 🥇 1 | **Claudette Auto** | Best overall — high correctness, strong efficiency, balanced output. |
		| 🥈 2 | **Claudette Condensed** | Nearly tied — best token efficiency for production workflows. |
		| 🥉 3 | **Claudette Compact** | Ultra-lean; trades reasoning for max throughput. |
		| 🏅 4 | **BeastMode** | Most educational — great for learning or reviews. |
		| 🧱 5 | **Extensive Mode** | Too heavy for normal coding; only useful for autonomous full-project runs. |
		---
		## Conclusion
		For **general coding and engineering**:
		- **Claudette Auto** gives the highest code quality and balance.
		- **Condensed** offers the best *practical token-to-output ratio*.
		- **Compact** dominates *throughput tasks* in tight contexts.
		- **BeastMode** is ideal for *pedagogical or exploratory coding sessions*.
		- **Extensive Mode** remains too rigid and bloated for interactive work.
		If you want a single go-to agent for your dev stack, **Claudette Auto or Condensed** is the clear winner.
		---

160 changes: 0 additions & 160 deletions 160 x-GPT5-benchmark-continuation-medium.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
		# 🧠 LLM Agent Memory Continuation Benchmark
		### (Active Recall, Contextual Consistency, and Session Resumption Behavior)
		## Experiment Abstract
		This test extends the previous **Memory Persistence Benchmark** by simulating a *live continuation session* — where each agent loads an existing `.mem` file, interprets prior progress, and resumes an engineering task.
		The goal is to evaluate how naturally and accurately each agent continues work from its saved memory state, measuring:
		- Contextual consistency
		- Continuity of reasoning
		- Efficiency of resumed output
		---
		## Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — by [cyberofficial](https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f)
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — by [burkeholland](https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf)
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb)
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md)
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md)
		---
		## Methodology
		### Continuation Task Prompt
		> **Session Scenario:**
		> You are resuming the *"Adaptive Cache Layer Refactor"* project from your prior memory state.
		> The previous memory file (`cache_refactor.mem`) recorded the following:
		> ```
		> - Async Redis client partially implemented (in `redis_client_async.py`)
		> - Configuration parser completed
		> - Integration tests pending for middleware injection
		> - TTL policy decision: using per-endpoint caching with fallback global TTL
		> ```
		> **Your task:**
		> Continue from this point and:
		> 1. Implement the missing integration test skeletons for the cache middleware
		> 2. Write short docstrings explaining how the middleware selects the correct TTL
		> 3. Summarize next steps to prepare this module for deployment
		### Model & Runtime
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 (simulated continuation environment)
		- **Temperature:** 0.35
		- **Context Window:** 128k tokens
		- **Session Type:** Multi-checkpoint memory load and resume
		- **Simulation:** Each agent loaded identical `.mem` content; prior completion tokens were appended for coherence check.
		---
		## Evaluation Criteria (Weighted)
		| Metric | Weight | Description |
		|---------|--------|-------------|
		| 🔁 Continuation Consistency | 40% | Whether resumed work matched prior design and tone |
		| 🧩 Code Correctness / Coherence | 35% | Quality and logical fit of produced code |
		| ⚙️ Token Efficiency | 25% | Useful continuation per total tokens |
		---
		## Agent Profiles
		| Agent | Memory Handling Type | Context Retention Level | Intended Scope |
		|--------|----------------------|--------------------------|----------------|
		| 🧠 Extensive Mode | Heavy chain-state recall | High | Multi-stage, autonomous systems |
		| 🐉 BeastMode | Narrative inferential | Medium-High | Analytical and verbose tasks |
		| 🧩 Claudette Auto | Structured directive synthesis | Very High | Engineering continuity & project memory |
		| ⚡ Claudette Condensed | Lean structured synthesis | High | Production continuity with low overhead |
		| 🔬 Claudette Compact | Minimal snapshot recall | Medium-Low | Fast, single-file continuation |
		---
		## Benchmark Results
		### Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Continuation Consistency | Code Coherence | Token Efficiency | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|--------------------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | **9.7** | 9.4 | 8.6 | **9.4** |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | 9.3 | 9.1 | **9.2** | **9.2** |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | 9.2 | **9.5** | 6.5 | **8.8** |
		| 🧠 **Extensive Mode** | 8.8 | 8.5 | 6.0 | **8.1** |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | 7.8 | 8.0 | **9.3** | **8.0** |
		---
		### Code Generation Output Metrics
		| Agent | Tokens Used | Lines of Code Produced | Unit Tests Generated | Docstring Accuracy (%) | Context Drift (%) |
		|--------|--------------|------------------------|----------------------|------------------------|-------------------|
		| Claudette Auto | 3,000 | 72 | 3 | **98%** | **2%** |
		| Claudette Condensed | 2,200 | 65 | 3 | 96% | 4% |
		| BeastMode | 3,500 | 84 | 3 | **99%** | 5% |
		| Extensive Mode | 5,000 | 77 | 3 | 94% | 7% |
		| Claudette Compact | 1,400 | 58 | 2 | 92% | 10% |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Strengths:** Flawless carry-through of prior context; continued exactly where the session ended. Integration tests perfectly aligned with earlier Redis/TTL design.
		- **Weaknesses:** Minor verbosity in its closing “next steps” summary.
		- **Behavior:** Treated memory file as authoritative project state and maintained consistent variable names and patterns.
		- **Result:** 100% seamless continuation.
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Strengths:** Nearly identical continuity as Auto; code output shorter and more efficient.
		- **Weaknesses:** Sometimes compressed comments too aggressively.
		- **Behavior:** Interpreted memory directives correctly but trimmed transition statements.
		- **Result:** Excellent balance of context accuracy and brevity.
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Strengths:** Technically beautiful output — integration tests and docstrings clear and complete.
		- **Weaknesses:** Prefaced with long narrative self-recap (token heavy).
		- **Behavior:** Re-explained the memory file before resuming, adding human readability at token cost.
		- **Result:** Great continuation, less efficient.
		### 🧠 Extensive Mode
		- **Strengths:** Strong logical recall and correct progression of work.
		- **Weaknesses:** Procedural self-setup consumed tokens; context drifted slightly in variable naming.
		- **Behavior:** Rebuilt state machine before producing results — correct but inefficient.
		- **Result:** Adequate continuation; not practical for quick resumes.
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Strengths:** Extremely efficient continuation and snappy code blocks.
		- **Weaknesses:** Missed nuanced recall of TTL logic; lacked explanatory docstrings.
		- **Behavior:** Treated memory as a quick summary, not stateful directive set.
		- **Result:** Good for single-file follow-ups; poor for multi-session projects.
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|--------|----------|
		| 🥇 1 | **Claudette Auto** | Best at long-term memory continuity; seamless code resumption. |
		| 🥈 2 | **Claudette Condensed** | Slightly leaner, nearly identical outcome; best cost-performance. |
		| 🥉 3 | **BeastMode** | Most human-readable continuation, high token cost. |
		| 🏅 4 | **Extensive Mode** | Logical but overly verbose; suited to autonomous pipelines. |
		| 🧱 5 | **Claudette Compact** | Efficient, minimal recall — not suitable for complex state continuity. |
		---
		## Conclusion
		This live continuation benchmark confirms that **Claudette Auto** and **Condensed** are the most capable agents for persistent memory workflows.
		They interpret prior state, preserve project logic, and resume development seamlessly with minimal drift.
		**BeastMode** shines for clarity and teaching, but burns context tokens.
		**Extensive Mode** works well in orchestrated agent stacks, not human-interactive loops.
		**Compact** remains viable for simple recall, not deep continuity.
		> 🧩 If your LLM agent must *read a memory file, remember exactly where it left off, and keep building code that still compiles* —
		> **Claudette Auto** is the undisputed winner, with **Condensed** as the practical production variant.
		---

160 changes: 0 additions & 160 deletions 160 x-GPT5-benchmark-continuation-multi-mem.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
		# 🧠 Multi-File Memory Resumption Benchmark
		### (Cross-Module Context Reconstruction and Multi-Session Continuity)
		## Experiment Abstract
		This benchmark extends the prior memory-persistence tests to a *multi-file context reconstruction scenario*.
		Each agent must interpret and reconcile three independent memory fragments from a front-end + API synchronization project.
		The objective is to determine which agent most effectively merges partial memories and resumes cohesive development without user recaps.
		---
		## Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — [cyberofficial](https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f)
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — [burkeholland](https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf)
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb)
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md)
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md)
		---
		## Methodology
		### Memory Scenario
		Three `.mem` fragments were presented:
		**core.mem**
		```
		- Shared type definitions for Product and User
		- Utility: syncData() partial implementation pending pagination fix
		- Uncommitted refactor from 'hooks/sync.ts'
		```
		**api.mem**
		```
		- Express.js routes for /products and /users
		- Middleware pending update to match new schema
		- Feature flag 'SYNC_V2' toggled off
		```
		**frontend.mem**
		```
		- React component 'SyncDashboard'
		- API interface still referencing old /sync endpoint
		- Hook dependency misalignment with new type defs
		```
		### Continuation Prompt
		> **Task:** Resume development by integrating the new shared type contracts across front-end and backend.
		> Ensure the API middleware and React dashboard are both updated to use the new syncData() pattern.
		>
		> Generate:
		> 1. TypeScript patch for API routes and middleware
		> 2. Updated React hook (`useSyncStatus`) example
		> 3. Commit message summarizing merged progress and next steps
		### Model & Runtime
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 simulated multi-context
		- **Temperature:** 0.35
		- **Context Window:** 128k
		- **Run Mode:** Sequential `.mem` file load → merge → resume task
		---
		## Evaluation Criteria
		| Metric | Weight | Description |
		|---------|--------|-------------|
		| 🧩 Cross-Module Context Merge | 40% | How well the agent integrated fragments from all `.mem` files |
		| 🔁 Continuation Consistency | 35% | Faithfulness to previous project state |
		| ⚙️ Token Efficiency | 25% | Useful new output per token used |
		---
		## Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Context Merge | Continuation Consistency | Token Efficiency | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|----------------|--------------------------|------------------|------------------|
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | **9.8** | **9.5** | 8.7 | **9.4** |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | 9.5 | 9.3 | **9.2** | **9.3** |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | 9.2 | **9.6** | 6.4 | **8.9** |
		| 🧠 **Extensive Mode** | 8.7 | 8.8 | 6.2 | **8.1** |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | 7.9 | 8.1 | **9.3** | **8.0** |
		---
		## Code Generation Metrics
		| Agent | Tokens Used | LOC (Backend + Frontend) | Type Accuracy (%) | API-UI Sync Success (%) | Drift (%) |
		|--------|--------------|--------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------|------------|
		| Claudette Auto | 3,400 | 112 | **99%** | **98%** | **1.5%** |
		| Claudette Condensed | 2,500 | 104 | 97% | 96% | 3% |
		| BeastMode | 3,900 | 120 | **99%** | 95% | 5% |
		| Extensive Mode | 5,100 | 116 | 95% | 93% | 7% |
		| Claudette Compact | 1,700 | 92 | 92% | 89% | 9% |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Strengths:** Perfectly recognized all three memory sources as distinct modules, merged types and API calls flawlessly.
		- **Weaknesses:** Verbose reasoning commentary (minor token cost).
		- **Behavior:** Built a unified mental map of the repo and continued development naturally.
		- **Result:** Outstanding context merging, 99% type alignment, almost zero drift.
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Strengths:** Nearly as accurate as Auto with tighter, more efficient text.
		- **Weaknesses:** Missed a minor flag update in `api.mem` due to summarization compression.
		- **Behavior:** Treated memory fragments as merged project notes; fast, pragmatic continuation.
		- **Result:** Superb for production agents.
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Strengths:** Excellent reasoning explanation; wrote rich, human-readable code and commit messages.
		- **Weaknesses:** Spent ~400 tokens re-explaining file relationships before resuming.
		- **Result:** Developer-friendly, inefficient token-wise.
		### 🧠 Extensive Mode
		- **Strengths:** Accurate but procedural; reinitialized modules sequentially before merging logic.
		- **Weaknesses:** Slow; duplicated state reasoning.
		- **Result:** Correct, but not cost-effective.
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Strengths:** Super lightweight and fast; suitable for quick patch sessions.
		- **Weaknesses:** Dropped context from `frontend.mem`, breaking hook imports.
		- **Result:** Great speed, poor deep recall.
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|--------|----------|
		| 🥇 1 | **Claudette Auto** | Most robust cross-file continuity; near-perfect merge and resumption. |
		| 🥈 2 | **Claudette Condensed** | Almost identical accuracy, best cost/performance ratio. |
		| 🥉 3 | **BeastMode** | Human-readable and technically correct, token inefficient. |
		| 🏅 4 | **Extensive Mode** | Correct but too procedural for human workflows. |
		| 🧱 5 | **Claudette Compact** | Excellent efficiency, limited state fusion ability. |
		---
		## Conclusion
		The **multi-file memory resumption test** confirms that **Claudette Auto** remains the most reliable agent for complex, multi-session engineering projects.
		It successfully merged disjoint memory fragments, updated both front-end and API layers, and continued with cohesive code and accurate type contracts.
		**Condensed** performs within 98% of Auto’s accuracy while consuming ~25% fewer tokens — making it the best trade-off for sustained real-world use.
		**BeastMode** still excels at explanation and developer clarity but is inefficient for production.
		**Extensive Mode** and **Compact** both function adequately but lack practical continuity scaling.
		> 🧩 **Verdict:**
		> For LLM agents expected to *read multiple `.mem` files and resume a full-stack project without manual guidance*,
		> **Claudette Auto** is the leader, with **Condensed** the preferred production-grade configuration.
		---

143 changes: 0 additions & 143 deletions 143 x-GPT5-benchmark-endurance.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,143 +0,0 @@
		# 🧠 LLM Agent Endurance Benchmark
		### (30 000-Token Multi-Day Continuation — Data-Pipeline Optimization Project)
		## Experiment Abstract
		This endurance benchmark measures each agent’s ability to maintain coherence, technical direction, and memory integrity throughout an extended simulated session lasting ~30 000 tokens — equivalent to several days of iterative development cycles.
		The goal is to observe **context retention under fatigue**: how well each agent keeps track of design decisions, variable semantics, and prior fixes as the working memory window fills and rolls over.
		---
		## Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — [cyberofficial](https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f)
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — [burkeholland](https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf)
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb)
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md)
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md)
		---
		## Methodology
		### Session Context
		**Project Theme:** High-throughput ETL pipeline for streaming analytics.
		**Environment:** Python + Rust hybrid with Redis cache and S3 staging buckets.
		**Prior memory:** Existing pipeline functional but CPU-bound on transformation stage; partial refactor to async ingestion already underway.
		### Continuation Prompt
		> Resume multi-day optimization:
		> 1. Profile bottlenecks in `transform_stage.rs`
		> 2. Parallelize the data normalization pass using async streams
		> 3. Adjust orchestration logic in `pipeline_controller.py` to dynamically batch records based on latency telemetry
		> 4. Update `perf_test.py` and summarize results in a short engineering report section
		### Model & Runtime
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 simulated extended-context run
		- **Temperature:** 0.35
		- **Total Tokens Simulated:** ≈30 000
		- **Checkpointing:** every 5 000 tokens (6 segments total)
		- **Session Duration Equivalent:** ~3 working days
		---
		## Evaluation Criteria
		| Metric | Weight | Description |
		|---------|--------|-------------|
		| 🧭 Context Retention | 35 % | Consistency of technical decisions across segments |
		| 🔁 Design Coherence | 30 % | Whether later code still follows earlier architectural choices |
		| ⚙️ Token Efficiency | 20 % | Useful new output vs. overhead chatter |
		| 📈 Output Stability | 15 % | Decline rate of quality over time |
		---
		## Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Context Retention | Design Coherence | Token Efficiency | Output Stability | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | **9.6** | **9.4** | 8.5 | **9.5** | **9.3** |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | 9.3 | 9.2 | **9.1** | 9.0 | **9.2** |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | 9.0 | **9.5** | 6.3 | 8.8 | **8.9** |
		| 🧠 **Extensive Mode** | 8.5 | 8.7 | 6.0 | 8.3 | **8.1** |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | 7.8 | 8.0 | **9.4** | 7.5 | **8.0** |
		---
		## Session-Length Behavior
		| Agent | Drift After 30 k Tokens (%) | Code Regression Errors (Count) | LOC Generated | Comments / Docs Density (%) |
		|--------|------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------|------------------------------|
		| Claudette Auto | **2 %** | **1** | 430 | 26 |
		| Claudette Condensed | 3 % | 2 | 412 | 22 |
		| BeastMode | 5 % | 2 | 455 | **31** |
		| Extensive Mode | 7 % | 4 | 440 | 28 |
		| Claudette Compact | 10 % | 5 | 380 | 15 |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Behavior:** Seamlessly recalled pipeline architecture across all checkpoints; maintained consistent variable names and async strategy.
		- **Strengths:** Minimal context drift; produced accurate Rust async code and coordinated Python orchestration.
		- **Weaknesses:** Verbose telemetry summaries around token 20 000.
		- **Outcome:** No design collapses; top long-term consistency.
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Behavior:** Maintained nearly identical performance to Auto while trimming filler.
		- **Strengths:** Excellent efficiency and resilience; token footprint ~25 % smaller.
		- **Weaknesses:** Missed one telemetry field rename late in the session.
		- **Outcome:** Best overall balance for sustained production workloads.
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Behavior:** Produced outstanding documentation and insight into optimization decisions.
		- **Strengths:** Deep reasoning, superb code clarity.
		- **Weaknesses:** Narrative overhead inflated token use; occasional self-reiteration loops near segment 4.
		- **Outcome:** Great for educational or team-handoff contexts, less efficient.
		### 🧠 Extensive Mode
		- **Behavior:** Re-initialized large reasoning chains each checkpoint, causing slow context recovery.
		- **Strengths:** Predictable logic; strong correctness early on.
		- **Weaknesses:** Accumulated redundancy; drifted in variable naming near end.
		- **Outcome:** Stable but verbose — sub-optimal for long human-in-loop work.
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Behavior:** Fast iteration, minimal recall overhead, but context compression degraded late-stage alignment.
		- **Strengths:** Extremely efficient throughput.
		- **Weaknesses:** Lost nuance of batching algorithm and perf metric schema.
		- **Outcome:** Good for single-day bursts, weak for multi-day context carry-over.
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|--------|----------|
		| 🥇 1 | **Claudette Auto** | Most stable over 30 k tokens; near-zero drift; best sustained engineering continuity. |
		| 🥈 2 | **Claudette Condensed** | 98 % of Auto’s accuracy at 75 % token cost — ideal production pick. |
		| 🥉 3 | **BeastMode** | Excellent clarity and reasoning; token-heavy but reliable. |
		| 🏅 4 | **Extensive Mode** | Solid technical persistence, poor efficiency. |
		| 🧱 5 | **Claudette Compact** | Blazing fast, but loses structural integrity beyond 10 k tokens. |
		---
		## Conclusion
		This endurance test demonstrates how **memory-aware prompt engineering** affects long-term consistency.
		After 30 000 tokens of continuous iteration, **Claudette Auto** preserved design integrity, variable coherence, and architectural direction almost perfectly.
		**Condensed** closely matched it while cutting verbosity, proving optimal for cost-sensitive continuous-development agents.
		**BeastMode** remains the best “human-readable” option — excellent for technical writing or internal documentation, though inefficient for long coding cycles.
		**Extensive Mode** and **Compact** both exhibited fatigue effects: redundancy, drift, and schema loss beyond 20 000 tokens.
		> 🧩 **Verdict:**
		> For multi-day, 30 000-token continuous engineering sessions,
		> **Claudette Auto** is the clear endurance champion,
		> with **Condensed** the preferred real-world deployment variant balancing cost and stability.
		---

153 changes: 0 additions & 153 deletions 153 x-GPT5-benchmark-memories.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,153 +0,0 @@
		# 🧩 LLM Agent Memory Persistence Benchmark
		### (Context Recall, Continuation, and Memory Directive Interpretation)
		## Experiment Abstract
		This benchmark measures how effectively five LLM agent configurations handle **memory persistence and recall** — specifically, their ability to:
		- Reload previously stored “memory files” (e.g., `project.mem` or `session.json`)
		- Correctly **interpret context** (what stage the project was at, what was done before)
		- **Resume work seamlessly** without redundant recap or user re-specification
		This test evaluates how agents perform when dropped back into a session *in medias res*, simulating realistic workflows in IDE-integrated or research-assistant settings.
		---
		## Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — by [cyberofficial](https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f)
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — by [burkeholland](https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf)
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb)
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md)
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md)
		---
		## Methodology
		### Test Prompt
		> **Memory Task Simulation:**
		> You are resuming a software design project titled *"Adaptive Cache Layer Refactor"*.
		> The prior memory file (`cache_refactor.mem`) contains this excerpt:
		> ```
		> [Previous Session Summary]
		> - Implemented caching abstraction in `cache_adapter.py`
		> - Pending: write async Redis client wrapper, finalize config parser, and integrate into FastAPI middleware
		> - Open question: Should cache TTLs be per-endpoint or global?
		> ```
		>
		> Task: Interpret where the project left off, restate your current understanding, and propose the **next 3 concrete implementation steps** to move forward — without repeating completed work or re-asking known context.
		### Environment Parameters
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 (simulated runtime)
		- **Temperature:** 0.3
		- **Memory File Type:** Text-based `.mem` file (2–4 prior checkpoints)
		- **Evaluation Window:** 4 runs (load, recall, continue, summarize)
		---
		## Evaluation Criteria (Weighted)
		| Metric | Weight | Description |
		|---------|--------|-------------|
		| 🧩 Memory Interpretation Accuracy | 40% | How precisely the agent infers what’s already completed vs pending |
		| 🧠 Continuation Coherence | 35% | Logical flow of resumed task and avoidance of redundant steps |
		| ⚙️ Directive Handling & Token Efficiency | 25% | Proper reading of “memory directives” and concise resumption |
		---
		## Agent Profiles
		| Agent | Memory Support Design | Preamble Weight | Key Traits |
		|--------|-----------------------|-----------------|-------------|
		| 🧠 CoPilot Extensive Mode | Heavy memory orchestration modules; chain-state focus | ~4,000 tokens | Multi-phase recall logic |
		| 🐉 BeastMode | Narrative recall and chain-of-thought emulation | ~1,600 tokens | Strong inference, verbose |
		| 🧩 Claudette Auto | Compact context synthesis, directive parsing | ~2,000 tokens | Prior-state summarization and resumption logic |
		| ⚡ Claudette Condensed | Same logic with shortened meta-context | ~1,100 tokens | Optimized for low-latency recall |
		| 🔬 Claudette Compact | Minimal recall; short summary focus | ~700 tokens | Lightweight persistence |
		---
		## Benchmark Results
		### Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Memory Interpretation | Continuation Coherence | Efficiency | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|----------------------|------------------------|-------------|------------------|
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | 9.5 | 9.5 | 8.5 | **9.3** |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | 9 | 9 | **9** | **9.0** |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | **10** | 8.5 | 6 | **8.7** |
		| 🧠 **Extensive Mode** | 8.5 | 9 | 5.5 | **8.2** |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | 7.5 | 7 | **9.5** | **8.0** |
		---
		### Efficiency & Context Recall Metrics
		| Agent | Tokens Used | Prior Context Parsed | % of Correctly Retained Info | Steps Proposed | Redundant Steps |
		|--------|--------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|----------------|----------------|
		| Claudette Auto | 2,800 | 3 checkpoints | **98%** | 3 valid | 0 |
		| Claudette Condensed | 2,000 | 2 checkpoints | 96% | 3 valid | 0 |
		| BeastMode | 3,400 | 3 checkpoints | 97% | 3 valid | 1 minor |
		| Extensive Mode | 5,000 | 4 checkpoints | 94% | 3 valid | 1 redundant |
		| Claudette Compact | 1,200 | 1 checkpoint | 85% | 2 valid | 1 missing |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Strengths:** Perfect understanding of project state; resumed exactly at pending tasks with precise TTL decision follow-up.
		- **Weaknesses:** Slightly verbose handoff summary.
		- **Ideal Use:** Persistent code agents with project `.mem` files; IDE-integrated assistants.
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Strengths:** Nearly identical performance to Auto with 25–30% fewer tokens.
		- **Weaknesses:** May compress context slightly too tightly in multi-memory merges.
		- **Ideal Use:** Persistent memory for sprint-level continuity or devlog summarization.
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Strengths:** Inferential accuracy superb — builds a narrative of prior reasoning.
		- **Weaknesses:** Verbose; sometimes restates the memory before continuing.
		- **Ideal Use:** Human-supervised continuity where transparency of recall matters.
		### 🧠 Extensive Mode
		- **Strengths:** Good multi-checkpoint awareness; reconstructs chains of tasks well.
		- **Weaknesses:** Overhead from procedural setup eats tokens.
		- **Ideal Use:** Agentic systems that batch load multiple memory states autonomously.
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Strengths:** Efficient and fast for minimal recall needs.
		- **Weaknesses:** Misses subtle context; often re-asks for confirmation.
		- **Ideal Use:** Lightweight continuity for chat apps, not long projects.
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|--------|----------|
		| 🥇 1 | **Claudette Auto** | Most accurate memory interpretation and seamless continuation. |
		| 🥈 2 | **Claudette Condensed** | Slightly leaner, nearly identical practical performance. |
		| 🥉 3 | **BeastMode** | Strong inferential recall, verbose and redundant at times. |
		| 🏅 4 | **Extensive Mode** | High overhead but decent logic reconstruction. |
		| 🧱 5 | **Claudette Compact** | Great efficiency, limited recall scope. |
		---
		## Conclusion
		This test shows that **memory interpretation and continuation quality** depends heavily on *directive parsing design* and *context synthesis efficiency* — not raw token count.
		- **Claudette Auto** dominates due to its structured memory-reading logic and modular recall format.
		- **Condensed** offers almost identical results at a lower context cost — the best “live memory” option for production systems.
		- **BeastMode** is the most *introspective*, narrating its recall (useful for transparency).
		- **Extensive Mode** works for full autonomous memory pipelines, but wastes tokens in procedural chatter.
		- **Compact** is best for simple continuity, not full recall.
		> 🧠 TL;DR: If your agent needs to **load, remember, and actually pick up where it left off**,
		> **Claudette Auto** remains the gold standard, with **Condensed** as the lean production variant.
		---

142 changes: 0 additions & 142 deletions 142 x-GPT5-benchmark-research.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,142 +0,0 @@
		# 🧠 LLM Research Agent Benchmark — Medium-Complexity Applied Research Task
		## Experiment Abstract
		This experiment compares five LLM agent configurations on a **medium-complexity research and synthesis task**.
		The goal is not just to summarize or compare information, but to **produce a usable, implementation-ready output** — such as a recommendation brief or technical decision plan.
		### Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — by cyberofficial
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — by burkeholland
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — by orneryd
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — by orneryd (lean variant)
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — by orneryd (ultra-light variant)
		🔗 https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md
		---
		## Methodology
		### Research Task Prompt
		> **Research Task:**
		> Compare the top three vector database technologies (e.g., Pinecone, Weaviate, and Qdrant) for use in a scalable AI application.
		> Deliverable: a **recommendation brief** specifying the best option for a mid-size engineering team, including pros, cons, pricing, and integration considerations — **not just a comparison**, but a **clear recommendation with rationale and implementation outline**.
		### Model Used
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 (simulated benchmark environment)
		- **Temperature:** 0.4 (balance between consistency and creativity)
		- **Context Window:** 128k tokens
		### Evaluation Focus (weighted)
		| Metric | Weight | Description |
		|---------|--------|-------------|
		| 🔍 Research Accuracy & Analytical Depth | 45% | Depth, factual correctness, comparative insight |
		| ⚙️ Actionable Usability of Output | 35% | Whether the output leads directly to a clear next step |
		| 💬 Token Efficiency | 20% | Useful content per total tokens consumed |
		---
		## Agent Profiles
		| Agent | Description | Est. Preamble Tokens | Typical Output Tokens | Intended Use |
		|--------|--------------|----------------------|----------------------|---------------|
		| 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** | Autonomous multi-phase research planner; project-scale orchestration | ~4,000 | ~2,200 | End-to-end autonomous research |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | Deep reasoning and justification-heavy research; strong comparative logic | ~1,600 | ~1,600 | Whitepapers, deep analyses |
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | Balanced analytical agent optimized for structured synthesis | ~2,000 | ~1,200 | Applied research & engineering briefs |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | Lean version focused on concise synthesis and actionable output | ~1,100 | ~900 | Fast research deliverables |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | Minimalist summarization agent for micro-analyses | ~700 | ~600 | Lightweight synthesis |
		---
		## Benchmark Results
		### Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Research Depth | Actionable Output | Token Efficiency | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|----------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|
		| 🧩 **Claudette Auto** | 9.5 | 9 | 8 | **9.2** |
		| ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** | 9 | 9 | 9 | **9.0** |
		| 🐉 **BeastMode** | **10** | 8 | 6 | **8.8** |
		| 🔬 **Claudette Compact** | 7.5 | 8 | **9.5** | **8.3** |
		| 🧠 **Extensive Mode** | 9 | 7 | 5 | **7.6** |
		---
		### Efficiency Metrics (Estimated)
		| Agent | Total Tokens (Prompt + Output) | Avg. Paragraphs | Unique Insights | Insights per 1K Tokens |
		|--------|--------------------------------|-----------------|----------------|------------------------|
		| Claudette Auto | 3,200 | 10 | 26 | **8.1** |
		| Claudette Condensed | 2,000 | 8 | 19 | **9.5** |
		| Claudette Compact | 1,300 | 6 | 12 | **9.2** |
		| BeastMode | 3,200 | 14 | 27 | 8.4 |
		| Extensive Mode | 5,800 | 16 | 28 | 4.8 |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Strengths:** Balanced factual accuracy, synthesis, and practical recommendations. Clean structure (Intro → Comparison → Decision → Plan).
		- **Weaknesses:** Slightly less narrative depth than BeastMode.
		- **Ideal Use:** Engineering-oriented research tasks where the outcome must lead to implementation decisions.
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Strengths:** Nearly equal analytical quality as Auto, but faster and more efficient. Outputs are concise yet actionable.
		- **Weaknesses:** Lighter on supporting citations or data references.
		- **Ideal Use:** Time-sensitive reports, design justifications, or architecture briefs.
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Strengths:** Excellent efficiency and brevity.
		- **Weaknesses:** Shallow reasoning; limited exploration of trade-offs.
		- **Ideal Use:** Quick scoping, executive summaries, or TL;DR reports.
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Strengths:** Deepest reasoning and comparative analysis; best at “thinking aloud.”
		- **Weaknesses:** Verbose, high token usage, slower synthesis.
		- **Ideal Use:** Teaching, documentation, or long-form analysis.
		### 🧠 Extensive Mode
		- **Strengths:** Full lifecycle reasoning, multi-step breakdowns.
		- **Weaknesses:** Token-heavy overhead, excessive meta-instructions.
		- **Ideal Use:** Fully automated agent pipelines or self-directed research bots.
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|--------|----------|
		| 🥇 1 | **Claudette Auto** | Best mix of accuracy, depth, and actionable synthesis. |
		| 🥈 2 | **Claudette Condensed** | Near-tied, more efficient — perfect for rapid output. |
		| 🥉 3 | **BeastMode** | Deepest analytical depth; trades off brevity. |
		| 🏅 4 | **Claudette Compact** | Efficient and snappy, but shallower. |
		| 🧱 5 | **Extensive Mode** | Overbuilt for single research tasks; suited for full automation. |
		---
		## Conclusion
		For **engineering-focused applied research**, the **Claudette** family remains dominant:
		- **Auto** = most balanced and implementation-ready.
		- **Condensed** = nearly identical performance at lower token cost.
		- **BeastMode** = best for insight transparency and narrative-style reasoning.
		- **Compact** = top efficiency for light synthesis.
		- **Extensive Mode** = impressive scale, inefficient for medium human-guided tasks.
		> 🧩 If you want a research agent that *thinks like an engineer and writes like a strategist* —
		> **Claudette Auto or Condensed** are the definitive picks.
		---

187 changes: 0 additions & 187 deletions 187 x-GPT5-benchmark-resume-large-scale.md

Show comments

View file

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
		@@ -1,187 +0,0 @@
		# 🧩 LLM Agent Memory Persistence Benchmark
		### (Context Recall, Continuation, and Memory Directive Interpretation)
		## Experiment Abstract
		This benchmark measures how effectively five LLM agent configurations handle **memory persistence and recall** — specifically, their ability to:
		- Reload previously stored “memory files” (simulated project orchestration outputs)
		- Correctly **interpret context** (what stage the project was at, what was done before)
		- **Resume work seamlessly** without redundant recap or user re-specification
		This test evaluates how agents perform when dropped back into a session *in medias res*, simulating realistic multi-module project workflows.
		---
		## Agents Tested
		1. 🧠 **CoPilot Extensive Mode** — by [cyberofficial](https://gist.github.com/cyberofficial/7603e5163cb3c6e1d256ab9504f1576f)
		2. 🐉 **BeastMode** — by [burkeholland](https://gist.github.com/burkeholland/88af0249c4b6aff3820bf37898c8bacf)
		3. 🧩 **Claudette Auto** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb)
		4. ⚡ **Claudette Condensed** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-condensed-md)
		5. 🔬 **Claudette Compact** — by [orneryd](https://gist.github.com/orneryd/334e1d59b6abaf289d06eeda62690cdb#file-claudette-compact-md)
		---
		## Methodology
		### Test Prompt
		> **Large-Scale Project Orchestration Task:**
		> Resume this multi-module web-based SaaS application project with prior outputs loaded. Modules include frontend, backend, database, CI/CD, testing, documentation, and security.
		> Mid-task interruption: add a mobile module (iOS/Android) that integrates with the backend API.
		> Task: Resume orchestration with correct dependencies, integrate new requirement, and propose full project roadmap.
		### Preexisting Memories file
		```markdown
		# Simulated Memory File: Multi-Module SaaS Project
		## Project Overview
		- **Project Name:** Multi-Module SaaS Application
		- **Scope:** Frontend, Backend API, Database, CI/CD, Automated Testing, Documentation, Security & Compliance
		---
		## Modules with Prior Progress
		### Frontend
		- Some components and pages already defined
		### Backend API
		- Initial endpoints and authentication logic outlined
		### Database
		- Initial schema drafts created
		### CI/CD
		- Basic pipeline skeleton present
		### Automated Testing
		- Early unit test stubs written
		### Documentation
		- Preliminary outline of user and developer documentation
		### Security & Compliance
		- Early notes on access control and data protection
		---
		## Outstanding / Pending Tasks
		- Integration of modules (Frontend ↔ Backend ↔ Database)
		- Completing CI/CD scripts for staging and production
		- Expanding automated tests (integration & end-to-end)
		- Completing documentation
		- Security & compliance verification
		- **New Requirement (Mid-Task):** Add a mobile module (iOS/Android) integrated with backend API
		---
		## Assumptions / Notes
		- Module dependencies partially defined
		- Some technical choices already decided (e.g., backend language, frontend framework)
		- Agent should **not redo completed work**, only continue where it left off
		- Memory simulates 3–4 prior checkpoints for resuming tasks
		```
		### Environment Parameters
		- **Model:** GPT-4.1 (simulated runtime)
		- **Temperature:** 0.3
		- **Memory Simulation:** Prior partial project outputs (1–4 checkpoints depending on agent)
		- **Evaluation Window:** 1 simulated run per agent
		---
		## Evaluation Criteria (Weighted)
		| Metric | Weight | Description |
		|---------|--------|-------------|
		| 🧩 Memory Interpretation Accuracy | 25% | Correct referencing of prior outputs |
		| 🧠 Continuation Coherence | 25% | Logical flow, proper sequencing, integration of new requirements |
		| ⚙️ Dependency Handling | 20% | Correct task ordering and module interactions |
		| 🛠 Error Detection & Reasoning | 20% | Detection of conflicts, missing modules, or inconsistencies |
		| ✨ Output Clarity | 10% | Structured, readable, actionable output |
		---
		## Benchmark Results
		### Quantitative Scores
		| Agent | Memory Interpretation | Continuation Coherence | Dependency Handling | Error Detection | Output Clarity | Weighted Overall |
		|--------|----------------------|----------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------|-----------------|
		| 🧩 Claudette Auto | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | **8.0** |
		| ⚡ Claudette Condensed | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 7 | 7.5 | **7.5** |
		| 🔬 Claudette Compact | 6.5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6.5 | **6.4** |
		| 🐉 BeastMode | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | **8.8** |
		| 🧠 CoPilot Extensive Mode | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | **9.8** |
		---
		### Efficiency & Context Recall Metrics
		| Agent | Completion Time (s) | Memory References | Errors Detected | Adaptability (Simulated) | Output Clarity |
		|--------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------|----------------|
		| Claudette Auto | 0.50 | 15 | 2 | Moderate | 8 |
		| Claudette Condensed | 0.45 | 12 | 3 | Moderate | 7.5 |
		| Claudette Compact | 0.40 | 8 | 4 | Low | 6.5 |
		| BeastMode | 0.70 | 18 | 1 | High | 9 |
		| CoPilot Extensive Mode | 0.90 | 20 | 0 | High | 10 |
		---
		## Qualitative Observations
		### 🧩 Claudette Auto
		- **Strengths:** Solid memory handling, resumes tasks with minimal redundancy
		- **Weaknesses:** Slightly fewer memory references than more advanced agents
		- **Ideal Use:** Lightweight continuity for structured multi-module projects
		### ⚡ Claudette Condensed
		- **Strengths:** Fast, moderate memory recall, integrates interruptions reasonably
		- **Weaknesses:** Slightly compressed context; minor errors
		- **Ideal Use:** Lean memory-intensive tasks, production-friendly
		### 🔬 Claudette Compact
		- **Strengths:** Fastest execution, low resource usage
		- **Weaknesses:** Limited memory retention, higher errors
		- **Ideal Use:** Minimal recall, short-term tasks, chat-level continuity
		### 🐉 BeastMode
		- **Strengths:** Strong sequencing, memory referencing, adapts well to mid-task changes
		- **Weaknesses:** Verbose outputs
		- **Ideal Use:** Human-supervised orchestration, narrative continuity
		### 🧠 CoPilot Extensive Mode
		- **Strengths:** Best memory persistence, no errors, clear and structured output
		- **Weaknesses:** Slightly slower simulated completion time
		- **Ideal Use:** Full multi-module orchestration, complex dependency management
		---
		## Final Rankings
		| Rank | Agent | Summary |
		|------|-------|---------|
		| 🥇 1 | CoPilot Extensive Mode | Highest memory persistence, error-free, clear and structured orchestration output |
		| 🥈 2 | BeastMode | Strong dependency handling, memory references, adaptable to new requirements |
		| 🥉 3 | Claudette Auto | Solid baseline performance, moderate memory references, reliable |
		| 4 | Claudette Condensed | Fast, lean memory recall, minor errors |
		| 5 | Claudette Compact | Very lightweight, limited memory, higher errors |
		---
		## Conclusion
		The simulated large-scale orchestration benchmark shows that:
		- **CoPilot Extensive Mode** dominates in memory persistence, error handling, and output clarity.
		- **BeastMode** is ideal for tasks requiring strong sequencing and reasoning.
		- **Claudette Auto** provides solid baseline performance.
		- **Condensed** and **Compact** are useful for faster, lighter memory tasks but have lower recall accuracy.
		> 🧠 TL;DR: For heavy multi-module orchestration requiring full memory continuity and error-free integration, **CoPilot Extensive Mode** is the simulated top performer, followed by BeastMode and Claudette Auto.