Tusk's automated tests in light mode Tusk's automated tests in dark mode

​
How We Differ

  • Tusk self-runs the tests it generates and auto-iterates on its output so you can be confident that its tests are checking for relevant edge cases. Other test generation and code review tools do not reliably execute tests without a human in the loop.
  • Tusk is a PR check, which allows us to use more compute to reason if a test should be added or filtered out. AI co-pilots in your IDE are optimized for latency and snippet acceptance, and so tend to generate only passing tests.
  • Tusk ingests your testing guidelines and documentation so that it can generate tests that are inline with your team’s testing best practices.

​
Benchmarking

AgentBug DetectionCoverage DepthCodebase AwarenessTest Variety
Tusk90%Covers 100% of lines in PR, average of 10.0 tests generatedAlways follows existing pattern for mocking the Users and Resource services. 10% of the time it suggests test cases opposite to expected behavior.Generates both passing tests and failing tests that are valid edge cases
Cursor (Claude 3.7 Sonnet)0%Moderate coverage, average of 8.0 tests generated80% of the time it follows existing pattern for mocking the Users and Resource services. 60% of the time it suggests test cases opposite to expected behavior.Only generates passing tests, misses edge cases. 20% of the time it finds failing tests in its thinking but excludes them from output during iteration.
Cursor (Gemini 2.5 Pro)0%Moderate coverage, average of 8.2 tests generated0% of the time it follows existing pattern for mocking the Users and Resource services. 100% of the time it suggests test cases opposite to expected behavior. 40% of the time it created a test file with incorrect naming.Only generates passing tests, misses edge cases
Claude Code0%Fair coverage, average of 6.8 tests generated60% of the time it follows existing pattern for mocking the Users and Resource services. 80% of the time it suggests test cases opposite to expected behavior.Only generates passing tests, misses edge cases
We ran Tusk, Cursor, and Claude Code on a benchmark PR containing a boundary condition bug and found that Tusk was the only agent that caught the edge case (in 90% of its runs). Tusk also consistently followed existing mocking patterns, while Cursor and Claude Code incorrectly mocked the required services approximately half of the time. More details in this technical write-up.