Opus vs Qwen given same bug, same repo, yet one agent finished 7x faster
Summary
A comparison of Opus and Qwen AI coding agents on the same bug and repo shows one agent finished 7x faster, sparking discussion on skills for single-prompt GitHub issue solving.
Similar Articles
An agent just coded for 10 days with nobody watching. Qwen 3.8 max
Alibaba's Qwen agent autonomously coded for over 10 days in an empty repo, filing issues, writing code, running tests, fixing failures, and merging. It still required some feedback, but demonstrates a self-correcting autonomous loop.
Same task in github-copilot, pi, claude-code, and opencode with Qwen3.6 27B
The author tests multiple coding agent harnesses (GitHub Copilot, Pi, Claude Code, OpenCode) using the same Qwen3.6 27B model, finding that harness design significantly impacts performance, with OpenCode excelling at web searches and web development, and GitHub Copilot struggling with file editing tools.
I have never seen a agent willing to work so much like Qwen 3.6 27B
Reddit user reports Qwen 3.6-27B shows unusually proactive agent behavior, autonomously building, testing and fixing code without prompting.
@RayFernando1337: The bugs that cause churn almost never show up in a diff, and you only really catch them when you stop reviewing code a…
A developer shares a workflow using Cursor's Opus 4.8 Max Thinking model with subagent harness, and introduces a GitHub repository with installable skill files for AI coding agents, including a 'running-bug-review-board' skill that performs live QA testing.
Same model, same prompt, two agent harnesses: 45/50 vs 43/50
The article benchmarks two open-source coding agents on the same deepseek-v4-flash model, finding similar task success rates but significant differences in performance metrics and a critical bug in one agent's error handling.