MedOpenClaw and MedFlowBench: Auditing Medical Agents in Full-Study Workflows

Autonomous agents are increasingly expected to support end-to-end medical-AI research workflows, moving beyond isolated prediction tasks or short-form clinical question answering. However, existing medical agent benchmarks primarily evaluate final outputs, providing limited visibility into agent behavior within the research process. To address this gap, we present AutoMedBench, a workflow-aware benchmark for autonomous medical-AI research across diverse medical imaging and multimodal inference tasks, organizing agent execution into a unified five-stage workflow (S1-S5): Plan, Setup, Validate, Inference, and Submit. It comprises long-horizon tasks with each run averaging 33 agent turns, spanning five research tracks: segmentation, image enhancement, visual question answering (VQA), report generation, and lesion detection. Each task is evaluated under two difficulty tiers, Lite and Standard, which use the same data and metrics but differ in the amount of task-brief scaffolding, and each run is scored using both final task performance and S1-S5 stage scores, enabling stage-level analysis from the initial task brief to the final submitted artifact. Across thousands of recorded runs, stage-level scoring reveals that Validate is the weakest workflow stage on average, whereas Setup is the strongest, suggesting that current agents are better at making pipelines executable than at verifying their reliability. Post-run error analysis further shows that verification and submission failures dominate tagged errors, accounting for 37.7% and 38.1% of fired codes respectively, whereas task-understanding errors are rare at 0.9%, and runs with one fired error code have a 48% lower overall score than runs with no error code on average.

Large-scale construction of medical vision-language model (VLM) benchmarks is increasingly feasible with richly annotated imaging datasets and large language models (LLMs), yet existing automation largely focuses on generating evaluation items within predefined benchmark specifications. We study the broader problem of automatically deriving the specification itself: what to evaluate, which annotations support each task, and how to translate this evidence into reliable evaluation items. We formulate benchmark construction as constrained compilation, in which the benchmark specification is progressively derived from evaluation requirements, heterogeneous annotations, and medical knowledge. Based on this formulation, we introduce MedBenchAgent, a multi-agent framework with a Benchmark Intermediate Representation (BIR) that encodes task definitions, evidence mappings, evaluation protocols, and item specifications across construction stages. MedBenchAgent separates planning, which derives and verifies the specification, from instantiation, which constructs and audits items under the locked specification. MedBenchAgent achieves a Task-Space F1 of 90.9%, outperforming direct task induction (79.2-80.0%) and prior-guided induction (85.1%); 994 of 1,000 sampled items from correctly identified tasks pass human audit. We further demonstrate portability to a specialized medical domain and evaluate twelve VLMs, revealing task- and setting-specific variation obscured by aggregate scores. These results establish constrained compilation as a scalable and auditable framework for medical VLM benchmark construction beyond question generation.

Vision-language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in general medical visual question answering, yet due to limited interpretability, it remains unclear whether their predictions reflect evidence-grounded clinical reasoning or reliance on spurious priors. We introduce Med-R2 Bench, a hierarchical benchmark aligned with the clinical workflow to evaluate adversarial robustness with visual grounding. We design stepwise QA tasks to assess whether reasoning chains are strictly grounded in visual evidence across the four clinical stages, and employ adversarial perturbations to test robustness against misleading cues. Med-R2 comprises 42,432 images, 31 task categories, and 110,406 QA pairs. Evaluation across 14 VLMs reveals a sequential performance degradation along the four-stage clinical workflow. Adversarial experiments show that models rely heavily on correct prompts to guess answers. Even when provided with explicit visual cues, the models struggle to accurately align textual descriptions. Finally, we demonstrate stepwise fine-tuning using our hierarchical data significantly improves reasoning robustness, highlighting its potential to drive future improvements in evidence-based medical AI.