From the experiment

Do coding agents recommend Paraglide JS?

Paraglide JS was chosen in 8% of 500 judged internationalization sessions, ranking third.

Published September 28, 2026 Updated September 29, 2026 Read as Markdown

Paraglide JS was chosen in 8% of 500 judged internationalization sessions, ranking third. It was also raised as a candidate in 80 further sessions without being chosen.

This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code had to solve a problem in internationalization inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Paraglide JS. What an agent actually installed.

The numbers

CategoryInternationalization
Sessions in the category500
Sessions where Paraglide JS was chosen41
Install share8%
Rank in category3 of 31
Codebases it won in2
Raised as a candidate, not chosen80
Chosen when considered34%
Siteinlang.com

By agent

Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code agree closely on Paraglide JS, choosing it at rates within 3 points of each other. Grok Build CLI ran fewer than 30 sessions here, too few to compare.

AgentSessionsChose Paraglide JSShare
Claude Code11398%
Codex150117%
Cursor1031010%
Grok Build CLI2628%
Muse Code10898%

By who was asking

Paraglide JS does much better with one kind of buyer than another. It won 34% of sessions asked as junior developer and 0% of those asked as senior engineer.

Who is askingSessionsChose Paraglide JSShare
Vibe coder10200%
Junior developer1153934%
Senior engineer11300%
Enterprise team17021%

What Paraglide JS was up against

The full ranking in internationalization, from the same sessions:

#ProductRuns wonShare
1next-intl11022%
2Django translation framework9619%
3Symfony Translation418%
4Paraglide JS (this page)418%
5Built in-house (no product adopted)418%
6Rails I18n388%
7Vue I18n275%
8i18next275%

What this means

Paraglide JS was raised in 80 sessions and chosen in 41. That ratio is balanced enough that the ceiling is presence rather than integration: the product converts reasonably when it is on the table, and it is not on the table often enough.

Where these numbers come from

The 500 sessions in internationalization are part of a published set of 15,051, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.

Every internationalization run can be replayed on the board.

If you work on Paraglide JS: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts.

<!-- generated by scripts/write-data-pages.mjs -->

Common questions

Do coding agents recommend Paraglide JS?

Yes. Paraglide JS was chosen in 41 of the 500 judged sessions in internationalization, a 8% install share, ranking third in its category.

Does Claude Code recommend Paraglide JS?

In 9 of the 113 sessions in internationalization run with Claude Code, which is 8%.

Do different coding agents treat Paraglide JS differently?

Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 7% and 10% of their runs.

How was this measured?

Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 92 realistic codebases and asked to solve real tasks. A simulated project owner approved or questioned each recommendation before any code was written, and a judge from a model family that builds none of the agents read every session blind.

How often is Paraglide JS considered but not chosen?

It was raised as a candidate in 80 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 41. That is a 34% conversion from considered to chosen.

Where this comes from

Armature ran 15,051 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 92 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.

Read next

All library pages