# Fix list: Qwen3.5-4B From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/qwen3-5-4b, the October 2026 research run, assessed 21 October 2026. Grade C, 61.2 out of 100. This is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public. For a coding agent working on Qwen3.5-4B: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published. ## 1. Capability, 53 out of 100, up to 16.5 more on the total Why it scored 53: From 9 independent benchmark results in 4 areas, each scored as its share of the way from the benchmark's floor to the best result any model has on the same leaderboard. By area, Long context 71, Instruction following 63, Tool calling and agent tasks 50, Reasoning and knowledge 42. Publisher-submitted results count at half weight, and numbers that appear only on the publisher's card don't count. The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-capability): How well the model does on the benchmarks that matter to an agent. We don't average a publisher's own numbers into a grade. A result counts in full when we ran it on our reference machine, or when an independent party ran it and published the method (the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard, Artificial Analysis, Epoch AI's Benchmarking Hub, the SWE-bench and Terminal-Bench leaderboards, the Open ASR Leaderboard and others that run models themselves). A result the publisher submitted to such a leaderboard counts at half weight. A number that appears only on the publisher's card is shown on the listing as the publisher's claim and doesn't count. Each result is scored as its share of the way from the benchmark's floor (chance for multiple choice, zero for a pass rate) to the best result any model, open or closed, has on the same leaderboard and setting on the day we read it. A model that matches the best model anywhere scores 100 on that benchmark. For an error rate such as word error rate, lower is better and the scale runs the other way, and where the leaderboard gives no floor the rate is read against the best model's, so twice the best model's error rate scores 50. Speed as a multiple of real time (RTFx) runs from about 1 to over 20,000, so it's read on a log scale from real time to the fastest model. On the MTEB leaderboard, where most models score between 0.5 and 0.75, the floor is the median of every model the same tab lists, and its results count at half weight because MTEB doesn't say who ran them and most are submitted with the model. An arena rating (Elo) isn't a ratio, so its floor is 400 points below the best model on that arena, the gap at which the better model wins about ten games in eleven. Where a model has results at several settings (reasoning effort, say), its best one counts, because that's the setting an agent would run. The results group into areas, each weighted within the category. - Tool calling and agent tasks, 35 (BFCL, τ²-bench, Terminal-Bench and agent suites like them) - Coding, 20 (SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench, Aider Polyglot) - Reasoning and knowledge, 20 (GPQA Diamond, MMLU-Pro, Humanity's Last Exam, composite indexes that publish their components) - Instruction following, 15 (IFEval, IFBench) - Long context, 10 (RULER, LongBench and long-context retrieval tests) A speech model is read on its own areas, recognition accuracy (word error rate on the Open ASR Leaderboard's sets, 60) and speed (real-time factor, 40) for speech to text, and intelligibility and speaker similarity (Seed-TTS-eval, the Open TTS Leaderboard, 70) and speed (30) for text to speech. A publisher's own converted copy of the same weights (Qwen's -hf builds, say) counts as the same checkpoint. An embedding model is read on retrieval (60) and the other MTEB task types, classification, clustering, reranking and similarity among them (40), from the MTEB leaderboard. A vision model adds an image area (MMMU, ChartQA, DocVQA or OCRBench) at 20, and the others shrink to fit. Capability is the weighted mean of the areas with results, and needs results in at least two areas (one for a speech or embedding model). With less than that it's pending for that listing, its weight is shared across the other four, and the total is capped at 61, so a model nobody has benchmarked independently can't reach B, and every model with results ranked B or better stays above it. The listing says so. Until 21 October 2026 the cap was 69, which put models nobody had benchmarked above ones that had been. ## 2. Risk, 55 out of 100, up to 9 more on the total Why it scored 55: Safetensors only with no remote code gives file safety its 25, and files in the Qwen organisation the publisher's GitHub links to, each with a hash on the Hub, give provenance 15. The Apache 2.0 licence carries none of the deductions, so licence risk keeps 15. Safety evaluation, agent guidance and a security programme score 0, since the card has no safety results or cautions and no reporting route was found. The Qwen3.5 blog and Alibaba's security response centre couldn't be read, so those two are scored as absent and left open. The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-risk): What could go wrong when you run it, and what the publisher has done about it. A higher score means less risk. - 0 to 25, file safety. 25 for weights in safetensors or GGUF only, 15 when pickle files (.bin, .pt, .pth) sit beside them, 0 for pickle only. 10 off when the documented way to load it or to build its prompts runs code from the repository (`trust_remote_code`, or the publisher's scripts in place of a template). - 0 to 15, provenance. 10 when the files come from the publisher's own organisation, the one its site or docs link to, and 5 for a checksum on every file. - 0 to 20, safety evaluation. 20 when results are published and someone other than the publisher ran them or can rerun them, 10 for the publisher's own results, 0 for none. - 0 to 15, guidance for agent use. 15 for documented prompt-injection guidance or an instruction hierarchy the model was trained to follow, 10 for a statement of what its trained refusals cover and the safeguards to add around it, 5 for general cautions, 0 for none. - 0 to 15, licence risk. 15 to start, 5 off for each of these, a use policy or field-of-use limits beyond the law, terms the licensor can change or revoke, a revenue or user threshold, and a licence that changed without a dated note or whose link is broken. Not below 0. - 0 to 10, a security programme. 5 for a way to report a flaw (security.txt, a disclosure policy or a security contact), 5 for advisories handled in public. When our reference-machine runs start, measured robustness (prompt injection with AgentDojo, over-refusal with XSTest) joins Risk. ## 3. Documentation and upkeep, 34 out of 100, up to 6.6 more on the total Why it scored 34: The card covers five of the seven items and misses limitations and a cut-off (14). Training data is a general description without a cut-off (5). The files last changed on 2 March 2026, 233 days ago, which is within a year (5). No Qwen member has answered any of the discussions (0), and the GitHub issues couldn't be counted. Earlier 4B models stay in their own repositories without dated notes (5), and two pull requests fixing the template and adding generation_config.json wait unanswered (5). The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-upkeep): - 0 to 20, the model card. Intended use, limitations, architecture, parameters, context length, languages and knowledge cut-off. 20 for all seven, 3 off for each that's missing. - 0 to 20, training data. 20 for the data published or listed with sources and sizes, 15 for a data card that names the sources or the mix, the cut-off and the filtering, 10 for a general description with a cut-off, 5 without one, 0 for none. - 0 to 20, the last change to the files, the template or the reference code. 20 within 30 days, 15 within 90, 10 within 180, 5 within a year, 0 older. - 0 to 20, responsiveness. The publisher's replies to the 40 most recent questions and reports in the repository's discussions or issues. 20 for most, 10 for some, 5 for a few, 0 for none. - 0 to 10, version policy. 10 for earlier versions kept in their own repositories with a dated note when one is replaced, 5 for earlier versions kept without notes or a first release, 0 when files were replaced in place without a note. - 0 to 10, file health. 10 when config, tokenizer, template and card agree and no report of a broken file waits without a reply, 5 when one does, 0 when the files contradict the card. ## 4. Reach, 85 out of 100, up to 3.8 more on the total Why it scored 85: Memory earns the full 30 because Ollama's own Q4_K_M build is 3.3 GB, about 4 GB with the fifth added, though Alibaba itself publishes no quantised 4B, so builds scores 0. Runtimes reach the 25 cap on vLLM's stable release, Transformers 5.2.0, llama.cpp, Ollama's library and LM Studio's catalogue. Apache 2.0 with nothing added gives the full 15 for terms, the ungated repository the full 10 for download, and two live providers (featherless-ai on Hugging Face and Doubleword's own list) the 5 for hosted too. The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reach): Whether an agent can run it, and where. - 0 to 30, memory. The smallest build from the publisher or a runtime's own library that keeps 4-bit precision or better, at its file size plus a fifth for the runtime and a working context. 30 for 16 GB or less, 25 for 24 GB, 20 for 32 GB, 15 for 64 GB, 10 for what fits our reference machine (the GPU share of 128 GB of unified memory), 5 for 256 GB, 0 above. - 0 to 25, runtimes. 5 for each of llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang, LM Studio and Hugging Face Transformers that runs the architecture in a released version, from the runtime's own code, library or documentation. A publisher's fork or an unreleased branch doesn't count. 25 at most. - 0 to 15, builds from the publisher. 15 for quantised builds at two precisions or more (FP8, 4-bit, GGUF), 10 for one, 0 when only other people's quantisations exist. - 0 to 15, terms of use. 15 for an OSI-approved licence with nothing added, 10 for a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold or under a use policy, 5 for research or non-commercial use only, 0 for no licence or unclear terms. - 0 to 10, download. 10 when the files download with no account and no terms to accept, 5 for a click-through that needs an account, 0 when a person approves each request. - 5, hosted too. The publisher's own API serves it, or at least two inference providers do, so an agent without the hardware can still call it. When our reference-machine runs start, speed on that machine (tokens per second and time to first token at the build that fits) joins Reach. ## 5. Agent interface, 70 out of 100, up to 3 more on the total Why it scored 70: The template ships in the repository (20) and the model was trained for tool use with several calls per turn in the template (20). Tool-calling format gets 10, because the card names the qwen3_coder parser but leaves the declaration and call format to the template. Thinking turns off per request and comes back in think tags split by the qwen3 parser (10), and 262,144 tokens is native (10). Structured output scores 0, as nothing documents JSON output for the model. The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-interface): What a model and a developer need to talk to it. Speech, image and other models with no chat interface read the tool-calling and structured-output lines for what the model takes and returns (voices, timestamps, streaming, typed outputs), and the note says how. - 0 to 20, the chat template. 20 for a template in the repository (Jinja, in the tokenizer config or its own file), 10 when the prompt format is only given as code you run. - 0 to 25, the tool-calling format. 25 when the publisher documents how tools are declared and how calls come back, with the parser to use in a named runtime, 10 when only the template or a runtime's own recipe says it. - 0 to 20, tool calling the model was trained for. 20 with several calls in one turn, 10 for one call at a time. - 0 to 15, structured output. 15 when JSON or JSON Schema output is documented for the model with how to ask for it, 5 when the card claims it without saying how. - 10, reasoning control. Thinking that can be turned off or budgeted per request, with where the reasoning text comes back. - 0 to 10, context. 10 for 128K tokens or more trained, 5 for 32K to 127K. Context reached only by scaling the position encoding counts one band down. ## What we couldn't check What we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it. - Unchecked and scored as absent, Alibaba's security response centre (security.alibaba.com) is JavaScript-only for our reader, so whether it takes reports about Qwen models is unknown - Unchecked and scored as absent, the Qwen3.5 blog at qwen.ai is JavaScript-only, so any safety results or agent guidance there weren't read - Unchecked, issues on github.com/QwenLM/Qwen3.5, as the GitHub API isn't enabled for this session; responsiveness rests on the Hugging Face discussions - Unchecked, whether Alibaba Model Studio serves Qwen3.5-4B today; the card's Qwen-Agent example names it but the model list didn't render, and hosted too rests on two third-party providers - The card's family highlights mention sparse mixture-of-experts while this 4B is dense; read as family text, not a contradiction in the files ## Weaknesses - No quantised build from Alibaba for this size - No safety results, agent-use guidance or reporting route for flaws - No reply from Qwen to any discussion, and a template fix waits since April - Tool format is only in the template and structured output isn't documented - No limitations, knowledge cut-off or training data sources on the card ## What costs an agent a turn today The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need. - Smallest start is `ollama run qwen3.5:4b` (Q4_K_M, about 4 GB with context) - Full precision `vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.5-4B --port 8000 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder` - Turn thinking off with `"chat_template_kwargs": {"enable_thinking": false}` in the request body, since it's on by default and `/think` and `/nothink` aren't supported - There's no generation_config.json, so pass the card's sampling yourself, for example `temperature=0.7, top_p=0.8, top_k=20, presence_penalty=1.5` without thinking - Keep the context at 128K or more if you rely on thinking, and turn on YaRN only past 262,144 tokens - Validate any JSON it returns, since structured output isn't documented ## What the review panel asked for - merge or close pull request 14 - an official 4-bit build - a tool-calling section on the card - safety results on the card - a way to report a flaw ## When it's done Send what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `"kind": "dispute"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.