Backend maintenance
Passes within the agreed rules. No increase in review changes.
−38%
Move to canary
Example decision report
Where the new setup is ready, and where it isn't
One page that shows which kinds of work can move to the new setup, which should stay on the current one, and where there isn't enough data yet. In this example, the team is testing a cheaper setup to cut cost.
Illustrative data. Cost per task that passed counts every valid attempt, including failures and repeats, under rules fixed before the run. This example does not claim causation, or that any named vendor or model performs as shown.
Current setup
Claude Code · Opus · backend-tools@17
New setup
Different agent · different model · backend-tools@18
Rules fixed before the run
Merged tests pass · required checks · review changes · regressions
€8.10 current
€5.02 new
−38% change
Results by kind of work
Test repair
Required checks pass as often as before. Reviewers step in just as often.
−36%
Move to canary
Database migrations
Three regressions that only the new setup had
−31%
Keep current setup
Authentication
Not enough comparable results under the agreed rules
Unavailable
Keep testing
Projected annual saving
Unavailable
A projection needs customer-supplied baseline spend, the volume of eligible work, verified cost data and an agreed attribution window. Fullbeam won't make that number up.
What this example recommends
- Start a canary
- Backend maintenance · Test repair
- Keep the current setup
- Database migrations
- Keep testing
- Authentication
Code review checks each change. The benchmark checks the setup that wrote it.
Your reviewers still decide whether each pull request is good enough. The benchmark tells you whether the new setup should get more of the work. Your team makes the call and your own tools do the rollout. Where a supported agent connection is installed, results from the canary can confirm the decision. During the private preview, results are advisory and don't authorize a release.