MacroscopeBench

Our benchmark runs on real bugs, not synthetic ones. MacroscopeBench asks whether a code reviewer would have caught each defect at the commit that introduced it, the same benchmark we use to build and tune Macroscope Code Review.

Read about the benchmark
Model performance
Higher score means stronger combined precision and recall.
vs
Model
Claude Opus 5.5
max effort
82.380.6%84.0%3.01$11.5810m 8s
GPT-6 Sol
max effort
80.373.8%88.0%3.94$3.684m 57s
Claude Opus 5.5
xhigh effort
78.975.0%83.2%2.95$3.512m 52s
GPT-6 Astra
max effort
78.067.8%91.7%6.26$7.873m 49s
GPT-5.6 Sol
high effort
77.870.8%86.2%3.73$3.903m
GLM 5.3
max effort
77.476.4%78.4%2.24$3.8612m 30s
GPT-6 Sol
xhigh effort
77.269.0%87.6%3.86$2.003m 6s
Grok 4.6
xhigh effort
75.969.7%83.3%3.67$4.6814m 41s
Grok 4.6
high effort
75.169.9%81.1%3.17$3.5115m 30s
GPT-6 Sol
high effort
74.365.5%85.9%3.62$1.232m 3s
Claude Opus 5.5
high effort
73.168.1%78.9%2.35$1.301m 3s
Kimi K3
max effort
72.966.7%80.3%2.18$2.828m 13s
GPT-6 Luna
max effort
72.561.1%89.1%4.28$0.134m 1s
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
max effort
72.083.1%63.5%1.27$0.7516m 17s
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
low effort
70.777.5%65.0%1.37$0.388m 9s
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
high effort
70.577.5%64.6%1.33$0.387m 40s
Claude Opus 5.5
medium effort
70.163.4%78.3%2.35$0.9744s
Claude Opus 5
high effort
69.976.6%64.2%1.20$6.504m 18s
GPT-6 Sol
medium effort
69.259.7%82.2%3.08$0.691m 31s
GPT-6 Luna
xhigh effort
68.256.3%86.6%3.61$0.062m 2s
GPT-6 Luna
high effort
65.653.0%86.0%3.50$0.051m 40s
Claude Opus 5
medium effort
65.568.8%62.5%1.18$3.502m 12s
GPT-6 Luna
medium effort
62.450.9%80.5%2.60$0.031m 14s
GPT-6 Sol
low effort
61.852.1%75.9%2.35$0.3658s
Claude Opus 5.5
low effort
61.452.3%74.3%2.21$0.6829s
Claude Opus 5
low effort
59.457.4%61.5%1.12$1.4056s
GPT-6 Luna
low effort
44.738.0%54.5%1.00$0.0242s

Metric Definitions

Every model is run 3 independent times through the benchmark to account for nondeterminism and diverging results. Every metric, unless stated otherwise, is the arithmetic mean of the three independent runs.

  • Score: The harmonic mean of known-bug recall and overall bug detection precision.
  • Recall: The detection rate of the known bugs within the benchmark dataset. A bug is credited when an LLM judge determines that it matches a bug that was later explicitly identified and fixed in the codebase. Credit is per bug, so several bug reports describing the same defect count once and recall cannot exceed 100%.
  • Precision: The percentage of all bugs reported by the model across the full benchmark that an LLM judge determines to be valid bugs that are introduced (or exposed) by the specific commit being reviewed in each task. The judge can explore the codebase when assessing validity. Invalid, subjective, and out-of-scope findings count against precision.
  • Severity buckets: All catalogued bugs and raised issues by the reviewer are assigned a severity grade based on potential harm of the bug. Selecting a severity bucket will update Score, Recall, and Precision to only consider bugs with that severity ranking.
    • Critical: Permanent loss or compromise, such as unrecoverable data loss or unauthorized access.
    • High: Serious disruption, such as crashes, hangs, or weakened data integrity.
    • Medium: Degraded functionality or incorrect behavior in core paths without lasting damage.
    • Low: Minor functional impact or defects affecting rarely reached edge cases.
  • Signal / Noise: The ratio of useful comments generated by the reviewer (signal) vs unuseful comments (noise). Useful comments are all valid correctness issues detected with a severity grade of Medium or higher. Unuseful comments are any issues deemed to be invalid for the task, or of Low severity.
  • Cost: The model inference cost in US dollars per code review task. Judging costs are excluded.
  • Duration: The median wall-clock seconds elapsed per code review task, excluding any time taken for judging or other benchmark evaluation or setup steps.