Rukall AI Coding Assistant Review: VIP Coding Olympics Test

Key Points:

• Rukall (also called “Root code” or “R code”) is the AI assistant being tested
• This is unedited, real-time footage of the tool’s performance
• Rukall is a fork of another tool called “Client”

My Take:

If you’re considering investing in an AI coding assistant, seeing these real-world tests provides valuable insight beyond what marketing materials might suggest.

Key Points:

• The creator creates a new folder for the project
• There appears to be model selection confusion
• The creator notes they’re “new to code” (likely referring to Rukall specifically)
• The tool begins tracking costs immediately, showing 11 cents spent early in the process

My Take:

The initial setup experience is important for any developer tool. Rukall seems to require some configuration that might be frustrating for new users, but the cost tracking is a transparent feature.

Key Points:

• Rukall creates both HTML and JavaScript files
• The tool opens a browser to display the application
• Cost counter reaches 23 cents at this point
• The creator notes that Rukall makes a “wrong decision” similar to the “Client” tool
• There appears to be confusion about which image generation model to use (GPT image vs. DALL-E)

My Take:

Rukall shows promise by quickly generating initial code and setting up a browser preview, but its confusion about API requirements could be problematic for real-world projects.

Key Points:

• The application opens in the browser but has issues
• Cost counter reaches 40 cents
• The creator notes that Rukall seems to use more tokens than other tools
• There are loading indicators (marked as a positive)
• The tool successfully generates images but using the wrong model (DALL-E 3 instead of DALL-E 2)
• When asked to fix issues, Rukall sometimes reverts changes instead

My Take:

Debugging is where many AI assistants struggle, and Rukall is no exception. Its tendency to revert changes rather than fix issues would likely frustrate developers in a real workflow.

Key Points:

• Total cost reached 60 cents for an incomplete application
• Rukall failed to implement several required features:
• ✗ No footer
• ✗ No ability to save images
• ✗ No local storage usage
• ✗ No device prompt
• ✗ No time display
• ✗ No screenshot for readme
• ✗ No page publishing
• The tool did create license files (one positive)
• The creator notes Rukall performed better than “Client” but still failed

My Take:

Rukall’s performance in this test suggests it’s not yet ready for complex web application development tasks. The combination of high token usage (cost) and inability to follow specific instructions makes it difficult to recommend for professional work.