diff --git a/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md b/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md
index ace90650..c7b938ff 100644
--- a/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md
+++ b/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md
@@ -58,6 +58,12 @@ A list of the models used for generating the baseline suggestions, and example r
       <td style="text-align:left;">1024</td>
       <td style="text-align:center;"><b>44.3</b></td>
     </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td style="text-align:left;">Grok-4</td>
+      <td style="text-align:left;">2025-07-09</td>
+      <td style="text-align:left;">Unknown</td>
+      <td style="text-align:center;"><b>41.7</b></td>
+    </tr>
     <tr>
       <td style="text-align:left;">Claude-4-sonnet</td>
       <td style="text-align:left;">2025-05-14</td>
@@ -262,6 +268,23 @@ weaknesses:
 - **Frequent incorrect or no-op fixes:** It sometimes supplies identical “before/after” code, flags non-issues, or suggests changes that would break compilation or logic, reducing reviewer trust.
 - **Shaky guideline consistency:** Although generally compliant, it still occasionally violates rules (touches unchanged lines, offers stylistic advice, adds imports) and duplicates suggestions, indicating unstable internal checks.
 
+### Grok-4
+
+final score: **32.8**
+
+strengths:
+
+- **Focused and concise fixes:** When the model does detect a problem it usually proposes a minimal, well-scoped patch that compiles and directly addresses the defect without unnecessary noise.  
+- **Good critical-bug instinct:** It often prioritises show-stoppers (compile failures, crashes, security issues) over cosmetic matters and occasionally spots subtle issues that all other reviewers miss.  
+- **Clear explanations & snippets:** Explanations are short, readable and paired with ready-to-paste code, making the advice easy to apply.  
+
+weaknesses:
+
+- **High miss rate:** In a large fraction of examples the model returned an empty list or covered only one minor issue while overlooking more serious newly-introduced bugs.  
+- **Inconsistent accuracy:** A noticeable subset of answers contain wrong or even harmful fixes (e.g., removing valid flags, creating compile errors, re-introducing bugs).  
+- **Limited breadth:** Even when it finds a real defect it rarely reports additional related problems that peers catch, leading to partial reviews.  
+- **Occasional guideline slips:** A few replies modify unchanged lines, suggest new imports, or duplicate suggestions, showing imperfect compliance with instructions.
+
 ## Appendix - Example Results
 
 Some examples of benchmarked PRs and their results: