---
license: cc-by-4.0
language:
- en
tags:
- unity
- unity6
- csharp
- code-review
- bug-detection
- llm-evaluation
- code
pretty_name: UnityBench (by 14Dimension Enterprise)
task_categories:
- text-generation
size_categories:
- n<1K
configs:
- config_name: review_bugs
  data_files: data/review/bugs.jsonl
- config_name: review_clean
  data_files: data/review/clean.jsonl
- config_name: knowledge
  data_files: data/knowledge/*.jsonl
---

# UnityBench — by **14Dimension Enterprise**
https://www.14dimension.com/

**A two-track evaluation for Unity 6 / C# coding models: domain *knowledge* + real-world *bug review*.**

Generalist code models are strong — but how well do they actually handle **Unity 6**, and can they
find **real bugs in real game code** without crying wolf? There was no good public answer. This is one.

Built by **14Dimension Enterprise** from a shipping Unity Game — bugs and fixes reconstructed from real
version-control history. **Code:** https://github.com/leegod/unitybench

---

## Tracks

**1. Knowledge** (`data/knowledge/`, ~146 items) — Unity 6 lifecycle/API Q&A + short
"write this MonoBehaviour" compile tasks. Tests whether a model actually knows *current* Unity 6
(post-cutoff API, common pitfalls).

**2. Review** (`data/review/`, 24 buggy + 22 post-fix) — real Unity **gameplay** methods, each in two
states: the **pre-fix (buggy)** version and the **post-fix** version, reconstructed from
version-control history. We measure **recall** (does it flag the *real* bug?) — and the "post-fix"
set turned out to be a **methodology finding**, not a clean specificity control (see below).

## Review track — a methodology finding, not a leaderboard

We ran seven models on 24 buggy + 22 "post-fix" gameplay methods, expecting to rank them by recall
and specificity. We are **not** publishing a balance ranking — here's why.

| Model | Recall (real bug flagged) | Flag rate on "post-fix" methods |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.5 | 100% | 91% |
| Opus 4.8 | 100% | 100% |
| Qwen3-Coder (open, no context) | 92% | 77% |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 67% | 82% |
| Qwen3-Coder + project context (RAG) | 67% | 18% |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 62% | 55% |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 46% | 64% |

A naive harmonic-mean "balance" would rank GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.8 last — and that is wrong. We
hand-read their flags on the "post-fix" methods, then ran a convention-aware per-flag judge
(cross-checked by two independent judges) across all models: the thorough frontier models' flags are
**predominantly real review issues** (unchecked return values, missing null guards, non-atomic reward
grants, missing idempotency, `Resources.Load` null, `OnDestroy` on scene-unload), not false positives.
The ground truth is the problem: a "post-fix" method is the version where *one* bug was fixed, not a
method with *zero* issues, so "specificity" punishes the most thorough reviewer. Binary
recall/specificity is the wrong instrument; the right one is a per-flag verdict — but two independent
judges disagree enough (46–88% agreement) that absolute precision needs human gold labels, which is
why only recall + flag-rate are shown here. See the
[repo README](https://github.com/leegod/unitybench). Treat this as a case study in why
bug-detection benchmarks are hard.

## Fields

- `review_bugs`: `id`, `code` (buggy method), `bug` (description), `severity`, `context_needed`
- `review_clean`: `id`, `code` (fixed method)
- `knowledge`: Unity 6 Q&A / compile tasks

## License & citation

**Data:** CC-BY-4.0 — free to use, including commercially, **with attribution to 14Dimension Enterprise**.

```bibtex
@misc{unitybench2026,
  title  = {UnityBench: Unity 6 Knowledge \& Real-World Bug-Review Evaluation},
  author = {14Dimension Enterprise},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://github.com/leegod/unitybench}
}
```

— Built and measured hands-on by **14Dimension Enterprise** while shipping a Unity game.