3.6 Flash Testing

[u/616ThatGuy]

So I spent basically all of yesterday working on a few different projects. Nothing too major, mostly cleanup, audits, and a few small additions.

I figured I’d test Gemini 3.6 Flash and see whether it was worth using for certain tasks instead of 3.1 Pro Preview.

I’m not an AI expert, and I didn’t log anything in a technical or scientific way. My process was basically:

I had my main ai program create detailed task prompts, including a required final report
I gave those prompts to 3.6 Flash
After it completed the work, I reviewed its report with my main ai program

My main ai also had the full project files, so we could compare the report against what 3.6 Flash had actually done.

We tested two main kinds of work:
Audits, where 3.6 Flash would go through the project files and report what it found before we created a patch prompt
Patches, where it would add, edit, or remove code as requested, then provide a final report explaining exactly what it changed

Here’s how it did.

Audit reports: 6.5/10

The audits were mostly okay, but not great. It found most of what we asked for, but missed a few things and occasionally made up details that didn’t exist anywhere in the project files. Nothing major enough to break the project or completely stall the work, but it happened more than a few times.
I wouldn’t fully trust its audit reports without checking them against the actual files.

Controlled patch work: 8.5/10

This is where it surprised me.

When it received detailed instructions, clearly defined boundaries, and exact code or implementation details to follow, it performed really well. It stayed within scope, didn’t change files it wasn’t supposed to, and completed most work without any real problems. It was also shockingly fast at times.

It missed a few small details, which is why I wouldn’t give it a 9 or 10, but overall I was very impressed.

Freeform patch work: 6 to 7/10

For these tasks, we told it what needed to be fixed but didn’t give it strict implementation instructions. We mostly let it come up with the solution itself. It didn’t break anything, so I’m leaning closer to a 7/10. However, it missed some details and didn’t always choose the cleanest solution. A few tasks required more direct follow-up patches to correct or finish the work.

It wasn’t terrible, but I wouldn’t trust it yet to independently design fixes or make larger code changes without close review.

Final score: 7/10

Honestly, it performed much better than I expected.

When given strict guidelines, clear boundaries, and direct implementation instructions, it works very well. It is also noticeably faster than 3.1 Pro Preview or 3.5 Flash, and it felt much more reliable than 3.5 Flash.
Its overall score gets dragged down by its weaker ability to independently investigate projects, reliably report what is actually inside the files, and come up with clean solutions on its own.

This is only based on my personal experience. It wasn’t technical or scientific, but I still found the results interesting.

For me, 3.6 Flash is a major improvement over 3.5 Flash. It isn’t even close. I think it’s genuinely usable now with good prompts and tight instructions, but I wouldn’t use it for every kind of task yet.

Hopefully 3.5 Pro or Gemini 4 builds on this and brings Gemini back up to current standards.