Measuring "cost per successful PR" chose Luna 6 low as the best model
Comments on “Measuring "cost per successful PR" chose Luna 6 low as the best model”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
Ben Redmond of Stet argues that "cost per successful PR," which Baseten and others recommend, can mislead. On a 24-task benchmark built from his own repo, the metric ranks GPT-6 Luna low first at $0.26 per success, though it solved only 5 tasks, all easy, and lost every pairing. GPT-6.1 Sol medium falls to seventh. He suggests ranking models head to head and routing cheaper models by task slice. Results use one attempt per configuration on one repo.
Why it ranked
No. 20 of 107 with a score of 0.66. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.85) and technical depth (0.80), lowest on significance (0.52). Placed No. 20, No. 23 by score alone: the sixth AI & machine learning story of the day (−0.060). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Detailed, data-backed analysis of coding-agent evaluation metrics (cost per successful PR) with tables and head-to-head ranking; practical for builders evaluating AI agents, though authored as a personal benchmark post with a narrower audience.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A well-supported, technically detailed analysis of coding-agent evaluation metrics, with reproducible task-level comparisons and practical routing implications. Its main limitation is a small, single-repo benchmark and limited generalizability.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.66total under rubric v2.3
- Significance0.52
- Reader interest0.79
- Audience breadth0.64
- Practical relevance0.76
- Substantiated0.78
- Technical depth0.80
- New information0.85
- Counts against: Promotional0.09
- Counts against: Overclaim0.24
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.58 | 0.35 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.28 | +0.24 | +0.125 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.76 | 0.70 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.21 | +0.26 | +0.205 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.13 | +0.13 | +0.083 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.10 | +0.22 | +0.167 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.36 | +0.05 | +0.039 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.93 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.23 | +0.05 | +0.040 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.03 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.18 | −0.19 | −0.018 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.19 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 0.17 | −0.11 | −0.026 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.657 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.657 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-07/20/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-07/20.svg" alt="Ranked #20 on Rubric, 7 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 7 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.