VASP Agent: An Agentic Framework for Autonomous First-principles Calculations

Agentic AI systems increasingly connect large language models (LLMs) to external scientific tools, yet whether and when tool access improves prediction accuracy remains uncharacterized. We present AGAPI (AtomGPT.org API), an open access platform integrating eight open-source LLMs with 18 REST endpoints (28 agent tools, 50 web apps) spanning materials databases, force fields, tight-binding band structures, X-ray diffraction, and protein structure. A three-evaluation residual decomposition on JARVIS-Leaderboard electronic-structure test sets separates agent pipeline fidelity from inherited density functional theory (DFT) functional bias. For bulk modulus and bandgap the agent reproduces JARVIS-DFT entries to numerical precision, so the experimental-reference degradation is functional bias, not agentic malfunction. On memorization-resistant test sets (57 defective supercells, 60 hypothetical compositions), tool-augmented mean absolute error (MAE) is below 0.005 eV versus 1.25 to 1.86 eV tool-free, confirming tools are indispensable where parametric knowledge is unavailable. We further demonstrate autonomous multi-step workflows including 10-operation defect-engineering pipelines. AGAPI is available at https://github.com/atomgptlab/agapi.

Computational materials science and chemistry span vast knowledge domains and fractured software ecosystems. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated research capabilities, scaling monolithic agents to manage the rigor and complexity of atomistic research remains a challenge. Here, we introduce AtomisticSkills, an open-source harness framework that empowers general-purpose AI coding agents to conduct atomistic research across materials science, chemistry, and drug discovery. By hierarchically decomposing scientific workflows into agent skills and tools, AtomisticSkills provides agents with modular, extensible, and plug-and-play research capabilities. The framework integrates more than 100 human-curated multidisciplinary skills, including database access, thermodynamics and kinetics modeling, and diverse simulation engines employing machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) and density functional theory (DFT). We validate its functional coverage against scientific literature and demonstrate robust orchestration capabilities across diverse scientific campaigns: generative design of Li-ion solid-state electrolytes, high-throughput screening of metal-organic frameworks for CO2 capture, autonomous MLIP benchmarking and fine-tuning, multi-stage structure-based virtual screening for drug design, multimodal X-ray diffraction pattern analysis, and screening of Fe-oxide catalysts for oxygen evolution reaction. AtomisticSkills provides a critical agent infrastructure towards building fully autonomous AI scientists.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 53%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.