Harness-Bench: Evaluating Agent Harnesses across Models and Realistic Workflows
Open accessAbstract
LLM agents are increasingly deployed as executable systems that use tools, modify workspaces, and produce concrete artifacts. In such workflows, performance depends not only on the base model, but also on the harness: the system layer that manages context, tools, state, constraints, permissions, tracing, and recovery. However, existing benchmarks typically abstract away execution, compare complete agent systems, or hold the harness fixed, making execution-layer variation difficult to study. We introduce Harness-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating configuration-level harness effects in realistic agent workflows. Harness-Bench evaluates representative harness configurations across multiple model backends under shared task environments, budgets, and evaluation protocols, while preserving each harness's native execution behavior. The benchmark contains 106 sandboxed offline tasks constructed from practical agent-use patterns and manually reviewed for realism, solvability, oracle-checkability, and integrity. Each run records final artifacts, execution traces, usage statistics, and validator outputs, enabling analysis beyond final completion. Across 5,194 execution trajectories, we observe substantial variation in completion, process quality, efficiency, and failure behavior across model-harness pairings. These results suggest that agent capability should be reported at the model-harness configuration level rather than attributed to the base model alone. Our analysis further identifies recurring execution-alignment failures, where plausible reasoning becomes decoupled from tool feedback, workspace state, evidence, or verifiable output contracts. Harness-Bench provides a reproducible foundation for diagnosing and improving reliable, efficient, and auditable agent execution stacks.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Harness Bench (Yao et al., 2026) shows that agent capability varies across combinations of models and harnesses.
“Harness Bench (Yao et al., 2026) further shows that agent capability varies across combinations of models and harnesses, which motivates evaluation at the configuration level rather than attributing outcomes to the model alone.”
From HarnessRisk: A Lifecycle-Oriented Benchmark for Agent Harness Safety (2026) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2026
The same model can exhibit substantially different capabilities under different harnesses.
“The same model can exhibit substantially different capabilities under different harnesses [30, 38]”
From HarnessOpt-Bench: Evaluating LLMs at Harness Optimization (2026) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, et al. Measuring massive multitask language un- derstanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=d7KBjmI3GmQ.
- Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, et al. SWE-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=VTF8yNQM66.
- Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Peter Kirgis, et al. Holistic agent leaderboard: The missing infrastructure for ai agent evaluation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11977. · arXiv
- Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=iO4LZibEqW. Featured Certification, Expert Certification, Outstanding Certification.
- Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, et al. Agentbench: Evaluating LLMs as agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=zAdUB0aCTQ.
- Fanqing Meng, Lingxiao Du, Zijian Wu, et al. Clawmark: A living-world benchmark for multi-turn, multi-day, multimodal coworker agents, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23781. · arXiv
- Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, et al. GAIA: a benchmark for general AI assistants. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=fibxvahvs3.
- Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessi, et al. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 68539-68551.
- Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uyTL5Bvosj. Featured Certification.
- Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversations. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=BAakY1hNKS.
- Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, et al. OSWorld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=tN61DTr4Ed.
- John Yang, Carlos Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, et al. Swe-agent: Agent-computer inter- faces enable automated software engineering. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 50528-50652.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, et al. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=tvI4u1ylcqs.
- Bowen Ye, Rang Li, Qibin Yang, et al. Claw-eval: Towards trustworthy evaluation of autonomous agents, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06132. · arXiv
- Yuxuan Zhang, Yubo Wang, Yipeng Zhu, et al. Clawbench: Can ai agents complete everyday online tasks?, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08523. · arXiv
- Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 46595-46623.
- Curran As- sociates, Inc., 2023. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/ file/91f18a1287b398d378ef22505bf41832-Paper-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.pdf.
- Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=oKn9c6ytLx.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
HarnessOpt-Bench: Evaluating LLMs at Harness Optimization
Ursekar, V., Shanker, A., Maurya, Y., Yasser, S., Kalmath, V. S., Chatrath, V., & Xue, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.06301
“The same model can exhibit substantially different capabilities under different harnesses [30, 38], which makes harness optimization – the iterative improvement of a harness on a measured outcome under a fixed budget – an increasingly important part of building capable AI systems.”
Li, Z., Li, Z., Shi, Y., Wang, R., Yang, J., Liu, Z., Wu, X., Li, A., Huang, C., Shang, E., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08964
Self-citationFinding the Right Fit: Model-Harness Interactions across Agent Tasks
Li, Y., Zhou, Y., Teng, Y. L., Yang, F., Deng, Y., Lyu, Z., Dong, X., Chen, F., & An, B. (2026) · arXiv
Self-citationHarnessRisk: A Lifecycle-Oriented Benchmark for Agent Harness Safety
Bai, Y., Duan, J., Peng, J., Wu, X., Liu, S., Wang, S., & Chen, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17597
- Authors
- Yao, Y., Tan, X., Liu, C.-H., Li, Y., Wang, Z., Lv, Z., Yu, W., Tan, Z., Tian, Y., Sun, L., Zhang, X., Zhao, G., & Yang, T.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.27922
- OpenAlex
- W7162690279
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Keywords
- LLM agents, agent workflows, benchmarking, execution traces, tool use, agent reliability
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
