In a large JavaScript/Three.js-to-Swift/Metal porting task, one user said LongCat-2.5-Preview got stuck in a loop, but resumed work after the user interrupted it and pointed this out. After further testing, the author personally felt that Space Bunny performed better.
Tasks this can help assess: Whether an agent gets stuck in a loop while porting a large project across programming languages and graphics technology stacks.
Tasks this should not be generalized to: Other coding tasks, overall model rankings, or unattended success rates.
Applicable model version: LongCat-2.5-Preview.
Test environment or client: The comment appeared under a free-use post in the OpenCode community; the author did not specify the client, version, or runtime configuration actually used.
Reasoning level and parameters: Not specified.
The author said they had the model port a large, complex project from JavaScript/Three.js to Swift/Metal. The original post did not disclose the project, prompt, code, evaluation criteria, or number of runs.
In an update, the author said the model got stuck in a loop; after being interrupted and told about it, it immediately exited the loop and resumed work. The update called it “longboat 2.5.” Given the context, this likely refers to LongCat, but the original post did not explain the spelling.
After further testing, the author felt that Space Bunny was clearly better than LongCat 2.5; no comparative data or consistent test conditions were provided.
In a later reply in the same discussion, the author said they would not want to leave the model on a large task and come back to find it still looping. This is a personal usage judgment, not a completion-rate measurement.
The original comment provided no quantitative results, output code, or information on whether the port was completed. The author only described the looping behavior and what happened after manual intervention.
This is a single user's self-reported experience with a Preview version. It cannot establish how often the loop occurs, why it happens, or the final quality of the port, and it does not show that other models perform better under the same conditions. The post discusses OpenCode, but that does not confirm which client the author actually used.
You can use the task type as a reference to design your own JavaScript/Three.js-to-Swift/Metal porting test, recording the prompt, model and client versions, parameters, whether looping occurs, and any manual intervention. The original comment does not provide enough information for strict reproduction.
LongCat 2.5
