idk

[idk @ferd1nar]

@astagaangerinya Udah sampe tahap apa ka

[idk @ferd1nar]

@silitmbledos Ini udah sampai tahap apa ya ka?

[idk @ferd1nar]

@minwonn_attack @worksfess halo ka, apa udah ada kelanjutan?? wkwk

[idk @ferd1nar]

@minwonn_attack @worksfess Good luck kakk🙌

[idk @ferd1nar]

@minwonn_attack @worksfess Kelanjutannya gimana sekarang kak?

[idk @ferd1nar]

@THYluhkoyd Thanks for sharing this estimate. Since Composer 2.5 is still not officially on DeepSWE, what do you think is the biggest source of uncertainty: the model-effort matching, the calibration method, or the benchmark task differences?

[Rayhan Athaillah @THYluhkoyd]

Every time DeepSWE comes up, agentic-coding users seem to ask the same thing:

Where is Composer 2.5?

DeepSWE has GPT-5.5, Opus, Sonnet, Kimi, Gemini, DeepSeek, Qwen, etc. But Composer 2.5, one of the main models people actually use inside Cursor, has no official DeepSWE row yet.

So I tried a benchmark-linking estimate.

CursorBench 3.1 has Composer 2.5. DeepSWE does not. But both share several other model-effort configurations.

So the question becomes: if we use those shared rows as a bridge, where would Composer 2.5 roughly land on DeepSWE?

I recomputed DeepSWE Pass@1 from trial-level data, normalized model names and reasoning-effort labels, then matched overlapping model-effort pairs between DeepSWE and CursorBench 3.1.

Then I estimated Composer 2.5 using several linking checks: ordinary least squares regression, ridge-style regression, Theil-Sen robust regression, linear equating, equipercentile equating, nearest-neighbor imputation, bootstrap plus leave-one-out sensitivity, and a median-delta baseline.

This is not an official DeepSWE result. It is an estimate from overlapping model-effort pairs, meant to ask whether Composer’s CursorBench performance could transfer to DeepSWE-style long-horizon software-engineering tasks.

[idk @ferd1nar]

@indrajo1384 @urlancelot @timothyronald22 @Kalimasada97 Kalau member tetep sampe bang🤣