Uncensored CyberTiel 35B-A3B 4-bit quant claimed to beat Opus 4.6 medium on codebase issues

A poster on r/LocalLLaMA has put out an uncensored 4-bit quantization of CyberTiel 35B-A3B and claims it beats Opus 4.6 medium cleanly on real codebase issues, finishing the same work in 27% of the time Qwen3.8-27b medium takes. The poster presents the model as the best 35B-A3B coder for solving real problems in real codebases without breaking anything, and points to SWE-bench-Live as the benchmark that tests exactly that. The claim rests on the poster's own testing rather than any published evaluation table.

CyberTiel is built on TielCoder, a censored base model. Removing refusals is normally a risk to capability, and the poster acknowledges that uncensoring a model is known to potentially damage it. In their account the damage is small enough to ignore: the effect of abliteration at full precision becomes negligible under Q4 quantization, and the weights the model needs for relevant work are preserved in higher precision. The poster argues the uncensored build is a more capable software engineer than the censored base while still allowing offensive security research.

The gains, according to the poster, come from the quantization recipe rather than from the abliteration itself. The quant was produced with an improved imatrix, baked from a curated corpus of cybersecurity and agentic software engineering work. A revised chat template makes the model think and talk better and faster. The poster credits that combination for the result on codebase issues, and says it is also what keeps working code intact while the model edits.

The comparison the poster draws is against two systems tuned differently from theirs. CyberTiel 35B-A3B is said to beat Opus 4.6 medium on real codebase issues, and the poster places it in the middle ground between Opus 4.6 medium and Qwen3.8-27b medium, a level they call good enough for most work. Speed is the sharper claim: the poster says CyberTiel fixes three issues in the time Qwen3.8-27b medium solves one, which is why they use it over Qwen3.8-27b for daily coding. The excerpt does not include per-task scores or the evaluation setup behind the Opus comparison.

The post states the limits as plainly as the gains. CyberTiel remains a 35B-A3B model, and the poster says it sacrifices world knowledge for coding ability. That tradeoff fits the target use: software engineering work rather than general reasoning about the world. The poster frames the choice as theirs, reflecting a workload where speed on routine issues outweighs the ceiling of a larger model.

The argument in the post is that censorship impedes legitimate and effective work, and that uncensoring unlocks offensive security research, the use case the poster gives for removing refusals in the first place. The text as provided cuts off mid-sentence on that point, so the rest of the reasoning is not available. No reply from the CyberTiel or TielCoder maintainers appears in what was provided, and no other coverage of the model was available to check the claims against.

Independent testing will decide whether the report holds. The numbers are the poster's own, the timing comparison against Qwen3.8-27b medium comes with no stated method, and the Opus 4.6 medium result is described in words rather than with per-task output. Until other users reproduce the SWE-bench-Live run and publish their own scores, the claim that this is the best 35B-A3B coder for real codebases rests on one person's report.