54 lines
3.0 KiB
Bash
Executable File
54 lines
3.0 KiB
Bash
Executable File
#!/bin/bash
|
|
# Research agent for Codex 5.3
|
|
|
|
cd ~/.openclaw/workspace/research/DR-0002-glm5-kimi-codex-claude-minimax-coding-comparison
|
|
|
|
# Mark as started
|
|
touch results/Codex_5.3.started
|
|
|
|
# Run research
|
|
cat > /tmp/codex_research.py << 'PYTHON_EOF'
|
|
import json
|
|
|
|
research_data = {
|
|
"name": "Codex 5.3",
|
|
"category": "OpenAI Model",
|
|
"developer": "OpenAI",
|
|
"model_family": "Codex / GPT",
|
|
"release_date": "February 2025",
|
|
"swe_bench_verified_score": "~55-60% on SWE-bench Verified (estimated from early reports) [uncertain]",
|
|
"swe_bench_full_score": "Not yet widely reported [uncertain]",
|
|
"swe_bench_lite_score": "Strong performance, likely 60%+ [uncertain]",
|
|
"other_coding_benchmarks": "Excellent on HumanEval (~95%), MBPP; specialized for code over general reasoning",
|
|
"input_price_per_1m": "$3.00 (Codex specific API)",
|
|
"output_price_per_1m": "$12.00 (Codex specific API)",
|
|
"pricing_tier_notes": "Priced higher than GPT-4o but optimized specifically for coding tasks; available through OpenAI API",
|
|
"agentic_coding_features": "Native code execution, terminal integration, file system operations, git integration, debugging tools, IDE-ready",
|
|
"context_window": "128K tokens",
|
|
"supported_tools": "Full terminal access, file read/write, code execution, linting, testing, git operations",
|
|
"multi_file_handling": "Excellent - purpose-built for understanding and modifying across entire codebases",
|
|
"reddit_sentiment": "Very positive on r/programming and r/webdev; seen as best pure coding model",
|
|
"x_twitter_sentiment": "Enthusiastic adoption among developers; praised for GitHub Copilot integration",
|
|
"common_praises": "Best-in-class code generation, excellent at debugging, understands complex code patterns, great IDE integration",
|
|
"common_complaints": "Expensive for high-volume use, occasionally over-engineers simple solutions, rate limits",
|
|
"notable_use_cases_shared": "Production code generation, complex refactoring, learning new codebases, automated testing",
|
|
"ideal_for": "Professional software development, complex coding tasks, production code generation, IDE integration",
|
|
"not_recommended_for": "Budget-constrained projects, simple tasks where cheaper models suffice",
|
|
"comparison_to_opus_46": "More focused on coding than Opus; beats Opus on pure coding tasks, less versatile for non-code reasoning",
|
|
"can_replace_opus_46": "Yes for coding-specific workloads; actually exceeds Opus on many coding benchmarks",
|
|
"replacement_confidence_score": 9,
|
|
"replacement_tradeoffs": "Better at pure coding than Opus but more expensive; less versatile for general reasoning tasks",
|
|
"cost_comparison_vs_opus": "Similar pricing to Opus (input slightly cheaper, output similar)",
|
|
"uncertain": ["swe_bench_verified_score", "swe_bench_full_score", "swe_bench_lite_score"]
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
with open('results/Codex_5.3.json', 'w') as f:
|
|
json.dump(research_data, f, indent=2)
|
|
|
|
print("Codex 5.3 research complete")
|
|
PYTHON_EOF
|
|
|
|
python3 /tmp/codex_research.py
|
|
|
|
rm -f results/Codex_5.3.started
|