zachar3/gpt56-power-profile-eval — explained in plain English
Analysis updated 2026-05-18
Compare how different AI models and effort levels perform at reviewing the same code change.
Regenerate the evaluation's charts and tables from the included normalized data file.
Study why two AI meta-evaluators disagreed on ranking the same set of code reviews.
| zachar3/gpt56-power-profile-eval | 0xallam/my-recipe | 0xhassaan/nn-from-scratch | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | 0 | — | 0 |
| Language | Python | Python | Python |
| Last pushed | — | 2022-11-22 | — |
| Maintenance | — | Dormant | — |
| Setup difficulty | easy | moderate | moderate |
| Complexity | 2/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| Audience | developer | general | developer |
Figures from each repo's GitHub metadata at analysis time.
Just needs pip install matplotlib numpy to regenerate the included charts.
This repository is a research write-up comparing how nine different AI model configurations reviewed the same piece of code, a Linux power-profile overhaul in another project called honor-control. Rather than trusting one model's opinion, the author had five different models, at various effort settings, each independently review the same set of changes, then had two separate AI evaluators judge and rank all nine reviews against each other to cut down on single model bias. The results are laid out in a ranking table showing which report scored best, how much each review cost to produce, and what each one's strength or blind spot was. The two judging models did not fully agree on which review was best: one favored a report that was most technically accurate, the other favored a report that alone caught a critical compatibility bug in a dependency. Both agreed on one thing though, that the code changes reviewed are not safe to merge or release as they stand. A cheaper, medium effort review also caught key issues that some pricier reviews missed, making it the best value option. The repository includes the individual review reports, the two meta-evaluations that scored them, a combined report reconciling the disagreements, and a script that regenerates all charts from a single normalized data file. Sixteen SVG charts cover overall scores, cost versus validated findings, and how the two judges' rankings differed. No actual hardware was touched during any review, since everything relied on reading code, checking dependency sources, and other safe checks rather than running anything live. To regenerate the graphs, install matplotlib and numpy, then run a single Python script that reads the data file and writes updated SVG images back into the documentation folder. The evaluation covered a specific commit in honor-control spanning four files and just over three hundred lines of changes, and the total cost of running all nine reviews plus the two meta-evaluations came to just over twenty three dollars.
A comparative study ranking nine AI model configurations on how well they reviewed the same code change, judged by two other AI evaluators.
Mainly Python. The stack also includes Python, Matplotlib, NumPy.
The README does not state a license for this project.
Setup difficulty is rated easy, with roughly 5min to a first successful run.
Mainly developer.
This repo across BitVibe Labs
Verify against the repo before relying on details.