TaskCraft: Automated Generation of Agentic Tasks
Open accessAbstract
Agentic tasks, which require multi-step problem solving with autonomy, tool use, and adaptive reasoning, are becoming increasingly central to the advancement of NLP and AI. However, existing instruction data lacks tool interaction, and current agentic benchmarks rely on costly human annotation, limiting their scalability. We introduce \textsc{TaskCraft}, an automated workflow for generating difficulty-scalable, multi-tool, and verifiable agentic tasks with execution trajectories. TaskCraft expands atomic tasks using depth-based and width-based extensions to create structurally and hierarchically complex challenges. Empirical results show that these tasks improve prompt optimization in the generation workflow and enhance supervised fine-tuning of agentic foundation models. We present a large-scale synthetic dataset of approximately 36,000 tasks with varying difficulty to support future research on agent tuning and evaluation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
DeepResearchGym: A Free, Transparent, and Reproducible Evaluation Sandbox for Deep Research
Coelho, J., Ning, J., He, J., Mao, K., Paladugu, A., Setlur, P., Jin, J., Callan, J., Magalhães, J., Martins, B., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.19253 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks
Edy, A., Conti, M., Xing, V., Allard, M.-A., Benhamdane, N., & Viaud, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.08048
“In each session, the Explorer interacts with the environment, proposes a realistic task, and completes it itself to establish feasibility (Shi et al., 2026; Ramrakhya et al., 2026).”
- Authors
- Shi, D., Cao, J., Chen, Q., Sun, W., Li, W., Lu, H., Dong, F., Qin, T., Zhu, K., Liu, M., Yang, J., Zhang, G., Liu, J., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Jiang, Y. E., & Zhou, W.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.10055
- OpenAlex
- W4417309032
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- multi-step problem solving, prompt optimization, agent evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
