← all benchmarks

TrueMend vs. stylelint on SCSS/CSS

TRUEMEND
45.4%
STYLELINT
9.6%
CONFIRMED · STYLELINT WINS

Our clearest current loss, both tools re-measured in the same round. stylelint’s surface is almost purely syntactic and it shows. Four of five fixed categories now sample at zero raw findings; roughly 110 untouched categories drag the number, and our real-rate sits at 3.1%.

TrueMend's clearest current loss: 45.4% wrong-match on a fresh full-pool sample against stylelint's 9.6%. The fix pass that took round 1 from 33.2% to 11.7% independently verified as holding — 4 of 5 targeted categories now sample at zero raw findings — but a fresh, more concentrated sample surfaced the ~110 untouched categories still dragging the number down.

This is TrueMend's clearest current loss against any measured competitor, and we're publishing it exactly as measured, not softened.

Round 1 — a real gap, honestly caused

stylelint's checks are almost entirely syntactic: property names, value units, duplicate selectors. That's a rule surface with almost no room to be context-blind — a duplicate selector either exists in the file or it doesn't. Against that surface, on 178 judged findings, stylelint scored 0.0% wrong-match. TrueMend started at 33.2%, and a fix pass brought it down to 11.7%. Still short of the <10% bar, and nowhere near stylelint's zero.

Round 2 (2026-07-28) — a fresh sample, a worse number, a verified fix

A parallel fix pass (the same round that re-certified Bash, Java, Go, and GitHub Actions) targeted the top wrong-match categories from round 1, then a fresh, from-scratch full-pool blind sample re-measured both tools.

RoundTrueMend wrong-matchstylelint wrong-matchTrueMend judged
Round 1 (prior)33.2% → 11.7% (fixed)0.0%178
Round 2 (2026-07-28)45.4%9.6%97

The number got worse, not better, even after real fixes. We checked why before publishing anything, and it isn't a regression: the 5 categories targeted in the fix pass — css-deep-nesting, scss-star-selector, css-stylelint-import-notation (removed outright as a duplicate of an existing detector), css-cursor-pointer-div, and css-content-empty — were independently re-verified against fresh source. Four of the five now produce zero raw findings on this corpus; they can't even appear in a fresh sample anymore. The fifth matches its reported reduction exactly. The fix held completely.

Result

TrueMend: 45.4% wrong-match. stylelint: 9.6% wrong-match. stylelint was re-measured this round, not carried forward from round 1 — this is a direct, current head-to-head. The 97-finding round-2 pool is smaller and more concentrated than round 1's 178, and with the 5 fixed categories no longer contributing wrong matches, the pool is now dominated by roughly 110 other detector categories the fix pass never touched. That's a real, disclosed sample-composition effect — but it doesn't change the bottom line. On the number that matters, right now, TrueMend loses to stylelint by a wide margin. Real-rate sits at 3.1%, underscoring how little of what TrueMend flags on this corpus is both correct and worth fixing.

Still open

SCSS/CSS is TrueMend's clearest current loss against any measured competitor. Closing it needs the same category-by-category work that moved Django and FastAPI: root-cause each of the ~110 untouched categories against real source, fix or retire what's context-blind, and re-certify on a fresh full-pool sample — at a larger scale than the 5-category pass just completed, because stylelint's rule surface is narrower and purely syntactic.