Benchmark results for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next against today's local model, qwen3.8-27b. Stacked on #177; retarget to main after #177 merges.
Five runs of each of the 8 tasks, through LiteLLM on the RTX 4090, 2026-10-23/24.
Model
Pass /40
Wall time
Prose turns
Notes
qwen3.8-27b (thinking)
36
131 min
0
all 4 failures on spec-parser
flash-next thinking, git workspaces
32
115 min
11
multi-file 2/5, spec-parser 2/5; 3 runs capped at 40 turns
flash-next lowthink, git workspaces
32
108 min
7
spec-parser 1/5; 4 capped, 4 escalated
flash-next thinking, old workspaces
22
110 min
6
10 failures were the missing git repo
flash-next lowthink, old workspaces
31
103 min
5
3 failures were the missing git repo
flash-next nothink, old workspaces
12
—
—
hits the turn cap over and over; not rerun
No run recorded an invented tool, and no LiteLLM fallback answered.
Review e2e (one run each, test_review_live):
qwen3.8-27b passed in 239s; qwen3.8-27b-nothink passed in 46s.
Flash-Next thinking failed: it wrote <tool_call> XML as text with invented tools (lint_fix, call), so its turns counted as prose and the review never posted.
Flash-Next nothink failed: invented tools, then about 20 duplicate "disregard" comments, and no review. This is the loop M7.8 (#178) addresses.
tool_choice: required was sent in every review turn, but it wasn't enforced there.
Reading it: the intervals overlap task by task, so 36 against 32 isn't decisive on five runs. Flash-Next is about 15% faster end to end. But the review failures, prose turns and capped runs all point the same way.
Recommendation: stay on qwen3.8-27b. Switching is the operator's call. If Flash-Next stays of interest, the next step is why tool_choice isn't enforced in the reviewer's requests, before more runs.
The first runs are kept: their task hash predates #177, so the report marks them (old).
Benchmark results for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next against today's local model, qwen3.8-27b. Stacked on #177; retarget to main after #177 merges.
Five runs of each of the 8 tasks, through LiteLLM on the RTX 4090, 2026-10-23/24.
| Model | Pass /40 | Wall time | Prose turns | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qwen3.8-27b (thinking) | **36** | 131 min | 0 | all 4 failures on spec-parser |
| flash-next thinking, git workspaces | 32 | 115 min | 11 | multi-file 2/5, spec-parser 2/5; 3 runs capped at 40 turns |
| flash-next lowthink, git workspaces | 32 | 108 min | 7 | spec-parser 1/5; 4 capped, 4 escalated |
| flash-next thinking, old workspaces | 22 | 110 min | 6 | 10 failures were the missing git repo |
| flash-next lowthink, old workspaces | 31 | 103 min | 5 | 3 failures were the missing git repo |
| flash-next nothink, old workspaces | 12 | — | — | hits the turn cap over and over; not rerun |
No run recorded an invented tool, and no LiteLLM fallback answered.
**Review e2e** (one run each, `test_review_live`):
- qwen3.8-27b passed in 239s; qwen3.8-27b-nothink passed in 46s.
- Flash-Next thinking failed: it wrote `<tool_call>` XML as text with invented tools (`lint_fix`, `call`), so its turns counted as prose and the review never posted.
- Flash-Next nothink failed: invented tools, then about 20 duplicate "disregard" comments, and no review. This is the loop M7.8 (#178) addresses.
`tool_choice: required` was sent in every review turn, but it wasn't enforced there.
**Reading it:** the intervals overlap task by task, so 36 against 32 isn't decisive on five runs. Flash-Next is about 15% faster end to end. But the review failures, prose turns and capped runs all point the same way.
**Recommendation:** stay on qwen3.8-27b. Switching is the operator's call. If Flash-Next stays of interest, the next step is why `tool_choice` isn't enforced in the reviewer's requests, before more runs.
The first runs are kept: their task hash predates #177, so the report marks them `(old)`.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
https://claude.ai/code/session_01J5Utyfzw7gF7UhjRDEtjTk
Five runs per task through LiteLLM on the RTX 4090. qwen3.8-27b (thinking)
passed 36 of 40. Flash-Next was run thinking, at reasoning_effort low, and
with no thinking.
The first Flash-Next runs used non-git workspaces, where `git log` fails,
so their task hashes are older and the report marks them (old). On git
workspaces (#177), both thinking and lowthink passed 32 of 40; nothink
passed 12 of 40 on the old workspaces and was not rerun. qwen3.8-27b had no
git-caused failures, so it was not rerun.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J5Utyfzw7gF7UhjRDEtjTk
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Benchmark results for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next against today's local model, qwen3.8-27b. Stacked on #177; retarget to main after #177 merges.
Five runs of each of the 8 tasks, through LiteLLM on the RTX 4090, 2026-10-23/24.
No run recorded an invented tool, and no LiteLLM fallback answered.
Review e2e (one run each,
test_review_live):<tool_call>XML as text with invented tools (lint_fix,call), so its turns counted as prose and the review never posted.tool_choice: requiredwas sent in every review turn, but it wasn't enforced there.Reading it: the intervals overlap task by task, so 36 against 32 isn't decisive on five runs. Flash-Next is about 15% faster end to end. But the review failures, prose turns and capped runs all point the same way.
Recommendation: stay on qwen3.8-27b. Switching is the operator's call. If Flash-Next stays of interest, the next step is why
tool_choiceisn't enforced in the reviewer's requests, before more runs.The first runs are kept: their task hash predates #177, so the report marks them
(old).🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01J5Utyfzw7gF7UhjRDEtjTk
Decision (operator, 2026-10-24): stay on qwen3.8-27b. No alias switch; the Flash-Next evaluation is closed.