What it is: a browser word game inspired by Codenames (not affiliated with Codenames or its publisher, Czech Games Edition): two teams, a 5x5 grid, one-word clues. The difference is that any empty seat can be a human or an AI. Why: games like this need four or more people, and I could rarely get that many together. Now one person, or two friends, can play a full game. What surprised me: I logged a few hundred model-vs-model games. In the 287 where one team went for more words per clue than the other, the more ambitious team won only 38% of the time. And the team whose guesser guessed better won 68% of games, more than the team with better clues (53%). What I'm proud of: every clue gets graded. Each board word gets an association score from embeddings plus two LLM raters that don't see the answer key; a guesser model fitted on real games plays the turn out, and each card is worth what it moved the win chance in past games. You see the grade, a win-odds chart and a 3-D map of the clue. The clip is a replay of Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra on the home page. Try it: https://wordspies.com/?ref=r-sideproject Stack: TypeScript, React, Express + Socket.IO, SQLite, models through AWS Bedrock. Solo, built with a lot of help from Claude Code. Status: live. Guests can play a free bot (no AI model, so it costs nothing to run) or a room with friends. Real AI models need a free account, which gets a few free games a day. The sign-up is there because every AI move is a paid API call, and an open endpoint would let bots run up a large AWS bill. What I'd love feedback on: is the first 30 seconds clear, does the clue grade feel fair, and what would make you come back for another game? If you wouldn't, why not?   submitted by   /u/Hardicecream17 [link]   [comments]