Check the prerequisites first
Identify agent versions and unsupported paths before selecting the test.
Open this resource →Evaluate Betterloop
Bring one team and a question worth testing.
Build a small evaluation around a recurring setup or knowledge problem, with agreed participants and results you can inspect.
A useful pilot ends with a decision. Choose a problem the team can demonstrate, then agree how the evaluation will show whether Betterloop helps.
01 / Evaluate Betterloop
Choose the decision before choosing the rollout size.
Harbor is an imaginary company. Its Search team wants to know whether search-api developers can maintain a consistent reviewed setup across Claude Code and Codex.
That question points to inspectable evidence: approved configuration, usable releases, local activation, and the behavior of selected controls.
Another team might evaluate a particular restricted operation. Its test needs the actual client and the exact supported boundary where the restriction applies.
A learning evaluation asks a different question. Did an entry reach a suitable session, and did a meaningful verification check support the intended outcome?
Select one primary question. Describe the current difficulty and the result that would justify continuing. Include known coverage limits in the same brief.
A download count cannot answer a correctness question. A signed artifact cannot answer an activation question. Pick evidence that matches the decision.
02 / Evaluate Betterloop
Prepare enough context for a practical first conversation.
Describe the recurring issue using a sanitized recent example. Include the selected clients and their versions without sending private source or credentials.
For setup work, list the manual corrections developers currently repeat. For shared learning, identify a check that tests the behavior you want to improve.
Record the repositories and operating systems involved. External services may add authorization requirements that should be addressed before developer enrollment.
Name the administrator and team owner. Identify eligible reviewers, participating developers, and the person who will decide whether to expand.
Bring data requirements to the same conversation. Required repository reporting, optional telemetry, external services, and contributions need an agreed scope.
| Brief item | Useful detail | Decision it supports |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring difficulty | A recent sanitized example and its effect | Which problem receives priority? |
| Participants | Administrator, team owner, eligible reviewers and developers | Who owns each setup or review task? |
| Environment | Repository identities, selected clients, installed versions and device platforms | Which prerequisites must be resolved? |
| Required behavior | Operation, boundary and acceptable support state | Is the proposed integration suitable? |
| Data scope | Acceptable report fields, connected services and necessary agreements | Can enrollment proceed on agreed terms? |
| Acceptance check | Observable result and a meaningful verification method | What would justify expansion? |
03 / Evaluate Betterloop
Complete one working path before repeating it.
Prepare the organization baseline and inherited team configuration. Confirm repository mapping and the availability of compatible signed runtime artifacts.
Enroll the first developer with a personal code. Complete native authentication and trust for every selected client before beginning the evaluation session.
Inspect Doctor results and Connections. Resolve missing authorization, absent runtime variants, or inactive hooks at their respective stages.
Try an agreed permitted operation and an agreed prohibited operation. Record whether each operation executed rather than relying only on a displayed decision.
Open an approved repository and an unapproved repository. Inspect project isolation and the reviewed unknown-repository behavior, including its required bounded report.
Once that path is repeatable, add another developer. The first completed path provides a reference for locating later device-specific issues.
- 01
Describe the test
Write the primary question and expected result.
- 02
Confirm readiness
Check deployment prerequisites and required client versions.
- 03
Publish the setup
Prepare the reviewed organization baseline and inherited team release.
- 04
Connect the first device
Complete enrollment. Complete native sign-in and trust. Start a fresh session.
- 05
Collect matching evidence
Inspect local diagnostics and the events relevant to the test.
- 06
Decide the next scope
Compare the results with the acceptance check before expanding.
04 / Evaluate Betterloop
Give failures an owner who can repair them.
The organization administrator owns the baseline, resource grants, GitHub connection, and unknown-repository setting. Deployment and data review also need coordination.
The team owner prepares inherited rules and project mapping. That owner checks the effective configuration against the team's required client behavior.
Eligible reviewers examine the exact configuration and resource revision. Independence requirements still apply when one person coordinates several responsibilities.
Developers complete native sign-in and trust, run diagnostics, and participate in the agreed operation checks. They should know where to report each failure.
The evaluation owner retains the evidence, stated limitations, and final decision. This role keeps the primary question visible as setup details accumulate.
An unavailable signing variant needs release repair. An external service login needs authorization repair. Neither should become an unexplained developer installation problem.
05 / Evaluate Betterloop
Make expansion an evidence-based decision.
Expand when the agreed result is demonstrated and the remaining limits are acceptable. Preserve tested versions and deployment conditions with that decision.
Continue investigating when delivery or activation is uncertain. An absent report does not support an affirmative result by itself.
Change the approach if the required operation lacks a usable boundary. A different client path or native managed deployment may be necessary.
For learning work, separate exposure from verified outcome. Investigate a failed check before attributing that result to the shared entry.
Agree support, price, duration, hosting, retention, and exit responsibilities directly. The pilot page does not establish commercial or service commitments.
What information helps start the discussion?
Send the recurring issue, selected clients, participating team size, required behavior, and data requirements. Keep source and credentials out of the inquiry.
Do we have to adopt Mimir for the evaluation?
No. A native Claude Code or Codex integration can be the selected path. Assess Mimir separately when its runtime capabilities are relevant.
How broadly can we interpret a positive result?
Use the scope measured by the pilot. General productivity claims need comparable work, meaningful correctness checks, and evidence that accounts for variation.