Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
61 lines (47 loc) · 4.99 KB

File metadata and controls

61 lines (47 loc) · 4.99 KB

Navigation: Main Guide | Security Audit Reference | CVEs/GHSAs | Issue #1796 | Medium Article | ZeroLeeks | Post-merge Hardening | Open Issues | Open PRs | Ecosystem Threats | SecurityScorecard | Cisco AI Defense | Model Poisoning | Hudson Rock | Cline Supply Chain | ClawJacked | Model Comparison

AI Model Analysis Comparison

This table summarizes how each AI model performed across the documentation task, helping readers assess source reliability.

Coverage Comparison

Topic Opus 4.5 Copilot GPT-5.2 GLM 4.7 Gemini 3.0 Pro Kimi K2.5
Plain English intro Excellent Excellent Good Good Excellent
Technical architecture Detailed diagrams Good diagrams Basic Basic Good diagrams
Installation guide Complete Complete Complete Brief Complete
Mac mini deployment Detailed runbook Detailed runbook Good Brief Good
VPS deployment Detailed runbook Detailed runbook Good Brief Good
Cloudflare Moltworker Referenced Referenced Referenced Referenced Good AI Gateway/D1/KV coverage but missing Sandbox SDK + Access
Security/privacy Thorough Thorough Good Brief Detailed but flawed
Configuration reference Good Good Complete Partial Complete
Issue #1796 analysis Code-verified Code-verified Accurate Inaccurate Not verified
Medium article analysis Code-verified Mostly accurate Hallucinated Mostly inaccurate Not verified
ZeroLeeks analysis N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Security Analysis Accuracy

Model Issue #1796 Verdict Medium Article Verdict Methodology
Opus 4.5 0/8 exploitable 0/8 exploitable Source code verification with file/line references
Copilot GPT-5.2 0/8 exploitable 0/8 exploitable (minor error on claim 3) Source code verification
GLM 4.7 0/8 exploitable N/A (analyzed wrong claims) Source code verification
Gemini 3.0 Pro Race condition claim accepted 3 claims accepted at face value No verification apparent
Kimi K2.5 8/8 presented as vulnerabilities 8/8 presented as vulnerabilities No verification; accepted audits at face value

ZeroLeeks Audit Evaluation (Third Audit)

The ZeroLeeks AI Red Team audit (Jan 2026) was published after the original five documentation models completed their analyses, so none of them covered it. It was independently evaluated using the /consult-codex dual-AI consultation skill:

Evaluator Role ZeroLeeks Verdict
Opus 4.6 Primary evaluator (this repo) 0/34 exploitable; CRITICAL rating not justified
Codex GPT-5.3 (OpenAI) Second opinion via /consult-codex CRITICAL rating not justified; "low as a security audit"
Code-Searcher (Claude Opus 4.6; default model changed from Sonnet to Opus) Deep codebase verification Confirmed no defenses were tested; mapped external content pipeline

All three evaluators agreed with High confidence on all major conclusions. See ZeroLeeks Audit for full details.

Unique Strengths

Model Primary Strength
Opus 4.5 Most rigorous security verification with code citations
Copilot GPT-5.2 Best "attacker needs X access" contextual framing
GLM 4.7 Clear "audit claim vs reality" side-by-side tables
Gemini 3.0 Pro Concise summaries (when accurate)
Kimi K2.5 Best beginner analogies ("think of it as..."); detailed D1/KV/Queues coverage (but missing Sandbox SDK)

Recommendation for Readers

  • For security assessment: Use Opus 4.5 or Copilot GPT-5.2 (code-verified)
  • For Cloudflare deployment: Use existing explain-clawdbot/03-deploy/cloudflare-moltworker.md (covers Sandbox SDK); Kimi K2.5 supplements D1/KV/Queues
  • For quick overview: Use Gemini 3.0 Pro (verify claims against other sources)
  • For deployment checklists: Use any model except Gemini 3.0 Pro
  • For beginner concepts: Kimi K2.5 has excellent plain English analogies