# Vision Model UI Understanding Benchmark

Date: 2025-12-29
Model: Claude Opus 4.5 (claude-opus-4-5-20251101)
Issue: skills-ebl

## Test Cases

### Test 1: btop System Monitor (Terminal UI)

Screenshot: /tmp/ui-test-btop.png

| Query Type | Query | Result | Accuracy |
|------------|-------|--------|----------|
| Element Location | Where is CPU usage? | Top-right quadrant, cores C0-C19 | ✓ Correct |
| Element ID | What sections visible? | CPU, Memory, Disks, Process, Network | ✓ Complete |
| State Detection | Battery status? | BAT▲ 77% charging, 11.89W | ✓ Correct |
| Text Extraction | System uptime? | 8d 20:30 | ✓ Exact |
| Layout | Describe layout | Header + 2x2 grid + process tree | ✓ Accurate |

### Test 2: GitHub Homepage (Web UI)

Screenshot: /tmp/ui-test-github.png

| Query Type | Query | Result | Accuracy |
|------------|-------|--------|----------|
| Element Location | Where is Sign up? | Top-right, ~x:1208 y:36 | ✓ Approximate |
| Element ID | What buttons visible? | 5 buttons identified | ✓ Complete |
| State Detection | Email field filled? | No, placeholder showing | ✓ Correct |
| Text Extraction | Main headline? | "The future of building..." | ✓ Exact |
| Layout | Describe navigation | Logo + 6 nav items + auth | ✓ Accurate |

## Findings

### Strengths
1. **Text extraction**: Near-perfect accuracy on readable text
2. **Element identification**: Can enumerate UI components reliably
3. **State detection**: Understands filled/empty, checked/unchecked, enabled/disabled
4. **Layout understanding**: Accurately describes spatial relationships
5. **Complex UIs**: Handles busy interfaces like btop well

### Limitations
1. **Coordinate precision**: Can give approximate regions but not pixel-accurate coordinates
2. **Bounding boxes**: Cannot provide exact element boundaries without prompting
3. **Small elements**: May miss very small icons or indicators
4. **Overlapping elements**: Could struggle with layered UI

### Prompt Engineering Insights

**What works:**
- Direct questions about specific elements
- Asking for enumeration ("list all buttons")
- State queries ("is X checked/filled/enabled?")
- Layout descriptions ("what's in the sidebar?")

**What needs refinement:**
- Getting precise coordinates requires specific prompting
- Bounding box extraction not native - would need grid overlay
- Click targets need "where would you click to X?" framing

### Recommendations for Desktop Automation

1. **Hybrid approach**: Use AT-SPI for precise coordinates, vision for semantic understanding
2. **Verification**: Vision can verify AT-SPI found the right element
3. **Fallback**: Vision can work when AT-SPI support is poor (Electron apps)
4. **Planning**: Vision excels at high-level task planning ("how would I save this file?")

### Comparison with AT-SPI

| Capability | Vision Model | AT-SPI |
|------------|--------------|--------|
| Text extraction | ✓ Excellent | ✓ Excellent |
| Element enumeration | ✓ Good | ✓ Excellent |
| Coordinates | ~ Approximate | ✓ Exact |
| State detection | ✓ Good | ✓ Exact |
| Semantic understanding | ✓ Excellent | ✗ Limited |
| Works on Electron | ✓ Yes | ~ Varies |
| Latency | ~2-5s | ~50ms |
| Cost | API tokens | Free |

## Conclusion

Vision models are highly capable for UI understanding tasks. Best used for:
- Task planning and high-level navigation
- Verifying correct element selection
- Handling apps with poor accessibility support
- Semantic queries ("find the settings button")

AT-SPI preferred for:
- Precise click coordinates
- Fast enumeration of all elements
- Programmatic automation
- Cost-sensitive batch operations

**Recommendation**: Implement hybrid approach - AT-SPI for mechanics, vision for semantics.
