Rebar UI

1.0

Published 2026-09-14 · updated 2026-09-25 — part of an ongoing build diary of dated, real measurements, not a one-time proof of the platform's superiority.

Simple, Composite, Complex tiers

Three complexity tiers beyond the single fixed component in the receipts — text-prompt only, run against both Claude and Qwen. These specs needed six blocks not yet exercised above (form, table, data-list, filter-bar, tabs, modal), and Claude's numbers here are "marginal" — total tokens minus the ~20,644-token shared harness overhead every Claude Code session pays, so they're comparable in kind to Qwen's raw completion totals. Run 2026-08-30 against rebar-ui v0.1.0.

Claude (marginal tokens, n=5)

6,3097,2578,2069,15510,103antd·Simplerebar·Simpleantd·Compositerebar·Compositeantd·Complexrebar·Complex
TierConditionMean (marginal)Difference
Simpleantd8,104—
rebar-ui7,999−1.3%
Compositeantd8,591—
rebar-ui8,402−2.2%
Complexantd8,988—
rebar-ui8,712−3.1%

Qwen (raw tokens, n=3-5)

591,1412,2233,3044,386antd·Simplerebar·Simpleantd·Compositerebar·Compositeantd·Complexrebar·Complex
TierConditionMeannDifference
Simpleantd1,4135—
rebar-ui1,2695−10.2%
Compositeantd2,1384—
rebar-ui1,8813−12.0%
Complexantd2,7625—
rebar-ui1,7945−35.0%
Both models agree once the sample is large enough
rebar-ui wins all three tiers on both models — a modest 1.3-3.1% on Claude, a much larger 10.2-35.0% on Qwen, the same bigger-gap-on-the-cheaper-model pattern found in the main n=15 experiments elsewhere on this site.

One representative build per condition (final run of each n=5 batch)

Caveats: n=5 per condition (n=3-4 for two Qwen composite cells), one day (2026-08-29/30). All builds typechecked and were Playwright-verified (clean render, zero console errors beyond antd's already-noted deprecation warning). Claude was instructed to build one-shot (no file exploration, no self-verification) each run, confirmed genuinely one-shot afterward (exactly one tool call per run), to mirror what Qwen's raw completion call structurally can't do either way.