shahules
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
131
Submissions
46
Member since
Oct 6
Joined 5 years ago
1. Evals are used throughout the article in the sense of LLM benchmarking, but this is not the point. One could effectively evaluate any AI system by building custom evals.
2. The purpose of evals is to help devs systematically improve their AI systems (at least how we look at it) not any of the ones listed in your article. It's not a one-time thing, it's a practice like the scientific method.
We tested Gemini, Claude Code, GLM, and Codex using our harness on their abilities to recreate a Slack workspace and benchmarked their performance.
Saw a variety of results:
- *Gemini 3 Pro:* Achieved the highest visual score (0.91 SSIM) but lacked interactive functionality. - *Claude Opus 4.6:* Developed the most complete application, balancing full interactivity with consistent self-correction. - *GLM-5:* Produced the best code architecture but reached a plateau in visual improvement. - *GPT-5.3 Codex:* Initialized quickly but entered a five-hour "scaling spiral" that failed to yield further progress.
Next, we’re planning:
- More web apps for cloning and benchmarking across the models - More functionality (the trajectory didn’t include full Slack features) - Better scoring for functionality (easier to catch Gemini’s mistake)
Repo: https://github.com/vibrantlabsai/cloning-bench
Blog post: https://vibrantlabs.com/blog/pa-bench