Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
In the test, REA did not copy the original code; instead, it understood the logic and then wrote a verification code generator that the original application did not have at all.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/17/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/15/2027
Sources
GitHub-Viral REA Hands-On: AI Reverse Engineers Any Software—Are Developer Moats Dead?
bilibili地层世界10/13/2026
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedWhat REA provides is inspection and preliminary analysis capability, not complete decompilation or deep reverse engineering, and it does not output complete decompiled source code.77% similarUnverifiedPassing self-written tests does not equal passing verification against the original behavior; self-written tests can only verify that the understood logic is self-consistent and cannot guarantee behavioral equivalence with the original in all cases68% similarUnverifiedThe user points out that the code generated by Codex has redundant-check problems of repeatedly executing the same test and repeatedly verifying old paths without covering new logic.67% similarUnverifiedIn the course, the run_backtest method is currently just a placeholder, and writing the backtesting logic is left as an exercise for students.67% similarUnverifiedREA's output is evidence-based, citing specific binary offsets or code blocks, and users can verify the analysis results in a decompiler.66% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1056668API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1056668MCP
get_claim(id=1056668)