docs(readme): drop unverified GPT-Researcher comparison chart - #3
Merged
AgentMindCloud merged 1 commit intoApr 30, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The "Compared to GPT-Researcher" section claimed a 16-row "Honest scorecard" comparison capability table, but the data backing it doesn't exist: - benchmarks/results/latest.md is a placeholder that explicitly says "No public benchmark run has landed yet" and "No fabricated numbers will ever ship in this file." - The capability claims (e.g. "Hidden multi-agent debate", missing features on the GPT-Researcher side) were never robustly verified. Shipping a comparison table without backing data — under a heading that explicitly says "Honest scorecard" — is a credibility risk on launch day. Removed. Kept: - The `## Benchmarks` section: it correctly describes the harness + methodology and is honest that no numbers have shipped yet. - The footer credit, softened from "(and benchmarked against)" to "Inspired in spirit by ...; the benchmarks/ harness runs head-to-head once API keys are configured." Past-tense framing was misleading. The `benchmarks/` directory itself — runners, harness, methodology, goals corpus — stays untouched. Reinstate the comparison once the recurring benchmarks workflow lands a green run with real numbers.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
The "Compared to GPT-Researcher" section in the README claimed a 16-row "Honest scorecard" capability comparison table — but the data backing it doesn't exist:
benchmarks/results/latest.mdis a placeholder that explicitly says "No public benchmark run has landed yet" and "No fabricated numbers will ever ship in this file."Shipping a comparison table without backing data — under a heading that explicitly says Honest scorecard — is a credibility risk on launch day.
Changes
## Compared to GPT-Researchersection (table + intro + legend).## Benchmarkssection. It correctly describes the harness + methodology and is honest that no numbers have shipped yet ("Round 1 numbers land … the next time the workflow lands a green run with the keys configured")."Inspired in spirit (and benchmarked against) [assafelovic/gpt-researcher]"to"Inspired in spirit by …; the benchmarks/ harness runs head-to-head once API keys are configured."— past-tense framing was misleading.What stays untouched
benchmarks/directory: runners (gpt_researcher.py,orchestra.py),harness.py,methodology.md,goals.yaml— all unchanged. The infrastructure is real; only the unverified marketing claim is removed.Test plan
Generated by Claude Code