Design a Polished Frontend
Best when visual quality, layout hierarchy, and interaction polish matter. Weights frontend skill, visual understanding, collaboration/style control, and enough execution to implement what was designed. Multimodal builds with strong UI taste should surface when evidence supports them.
Fit score ≠ absolute IQ
- Fit score is a weighted blend of this Quest’s attribute/skill weights (and optional cost/tempo soft prefs). Higher = better match for this job among scored Builds.
- Attribute inputs are peer-public scores (roughly 40–95 within the current peer set). A low STR here can still be a strong absolute model — it just ranks lower among current scored peers on that axis.
- Decisive means the leader is ≥4 fit points ahead of #2. Smaller gaps → pick on price, Party stack, or taste.
Peer set today: 6 scored Builds. Adding another re-ranks peers — re-run the engine after new evidence.
Best fit
Decisive lead on weighted fit. Strongest blend on Frontend And Ui + CHA. Gemini 3.1 Pro for deep research, long-context synthesis, and multimodal work when judgment and modalities matter as much as pure SWE points.
Struggle · STR · Execution is a relative soft spot (47 peer public)
Suggested multi-model stack
Most jobs want a Party — not one model forever. Primary handles the Quest; ceiling covers hard escalations; value handles volume and drafts.
Decisive Quest Fit lead — default seat for this job.
Peer STR 95 — escalate hard coding or agentic work here.
Cheapest list stack among remaining candidates ($0.435/$0.87) for volume or drafts.
What we weight
Relative importance of each input in the Fit formula.
- Do not rank solely on code benchmarks; UI taste requires UI-relevant evidence.
Contribution breakdown
Peer-public input × Quest weight. Bars show weight mass; numbers show the score fed into Fit.
All scored candidates
Decisive lead on weighted fit. Strongest blend on Frontend And Ui + CHA. Gemini 3.1 Pro for deep research, long-context synthesis, and multimodal work when judgment and modalities matter as much as pure SWE points.
Struggle · STR · Execution is a relative soft spot (47 peer public)
8.8 fit points behind Gemini 3.1 Pro · API · High thinking. Still solid where CHA / STR matter. You want OpenAI tooling + max-effort frontier performance on hard multi-step jobs.
Struggle · WIS · Judgment is a relative soft spot (40 peer public)
13.0 fit points behind Gemini 3.1 Pro · API · High thinking. Still solid where CHA / STR matter. You want near-frontier coding and agentic work with strong price and speed.
Struggle · No scored signal for Frontend And Ui on this Build yet
22.5 fit points behind Gemini 3.1 Pro · API · High thinking. Still solid where Frontend And Ui / CHA matter. You want one primary Build for coding and writing that stays pleasant under human supervision, holds constraints, and rarely needs the top-tier price.
Struggle · STR · Execution is a relative soft spot (40 peer public)
22.9 fit points behind Gemini 3.1 Pro · API · High thinking. Still solid where CHA / STR matter. The job is hard enough that a wrong answer costs more than Opus tokens.
Struggle · CHA · Collaboration is a relative soft spot (40 peer public)
35.2 fit points behind Gemini 3.1 Pro · API · High thinking. Still solid where STR / WIS matter. You want open-frontier capability at roughly an order of magnitude below Sol/Opus list prices.
Struggle · STR · Execution is a relative soft spot (45 peer public)
Capability snapshot
Peer public ranks feed Fit; raw aggregates stay absolute evidence fusion. Full sheet: Codex →
What matters most
- Visual hierarchy and spacing discipline
- Component consistency and states (hover, empty, error)
- Implementing a brief without generic template look
Common failure modes
- Functional but generic “AI slop” layouts
- Ignoring accessibility and responsive behaviour
- Over-animating instead of fixing structure