Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
.claude/skills/agent-eval/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.
> Note: Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.
Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:
yamlname: add-retry-logic description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client repo: ./my-project files: - src/http_client.py prompt: | Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests. Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s. judge: - type: pytest command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v - type: grep pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry" files: src/http_client.py commit: "abc1234" # pin to specific commit for reproducibility
Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.
| Metric | What It Measures | |--------|-----------------| | Pass rate | Did the agent produce code that passes the judge? | | Cost | API spend per task (when available) | | Time | Wall-clock seconds to completion | | Consistency | Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%) |
Create a tasks/ directory with YAML files, one per task:
bashmkdir tasks # Write task definitions (see template above)
Execute agents against your tasks:
bashagent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent claude-code --agent aider --runs 3
Each run:
Generate a comparison report:
bashagent-eval report --format table
Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
│ Agent │ Pass Rate │ Cost │ Time │ Consistency │
├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
│ claude-code │ 3/3 │ $0.12 │ 45s │ 100% │
│ aider │ 2/3 │ $0.08 │ 38s │ 67% │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘yamljudge: - type: pytest command: pytest tests/ -v - type: command command: npm run build
yamljudge: - type: grep pattern: "class.*Retry" files: src/**/*.py
yamljudge: - type: llm prompt: | Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff? Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-24 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 24 cases were attempted, and 22 counted toward the lift figure. The other 2 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +46 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.