Overview of AFT Benchmark Harnesses
mainThe benchmarks/ directory provides reproducible harnesses for evaluating AFT performance. Using Docker is the recommended approach as it eliminates the need to install AFT, Bun, Rust, CodeGraph, or OpenCode on your host machine. Results are automatically written to a results/ directory within each specific benchmark folder.
| Benchmark | Entry point | Measures |
|---|---|---|
aft-search/ | bun run bench:aft-search or make run-aft-search | AFT aft_search retrieval on the in-tree fixture suite |
codegraph-replication/ | bun run bench:codegraph-replication (local) or bun run bench:codegraph-replication:docker | Structured CodeGraph-style retrieval cases run through AFT and lexical baselines |
codegraph-vs-aft-retrieval/ | bun run bench:codegraph-vs-aft-retrieval or make run-codegraph-vs-aft-retrieval | Path A: No-LLM retrieval quality (AFT vs CodeGraph) using Recall/MRR/P@k |
codegraph-vs-aft-agent/ | bun run bench:codegraph-vs-aft-agent or make run-codegraph-vs-aft-agent | Path B: OpenCode agent A/B testing (AFT plugin vs CodeGraph MCP) |
Important Distinction:
- Path A (Retrieval): Focuses on retrieval quality without LLM involvement. Do not use these results to infer agent behavior.
- Path B (Agent): Uses an LLM and involves real agent runs, meaning results will have run-to-run variance.