NetAgentBench: A State-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Network Configuration

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly attractive for automating network configuration, yet their reliability and failure patterns are poorly understood. An essential prerequisite is to assess such agents in a realistic but risk-free environment. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short: they often treat configuration as static command generation or rely on overly simplified settings. Such evaluations understate the core challenges of network configuration, where correctness requires reasoning about protocol complexity and topology dependence. We present NetConfArena, an executable benchmark for evaluating LLM agents in closed-loop network configuration. NetConfArena places agents in emulated multi-device networks, provides a standardized and compact action interface for task execution, and evaluates the resulting network behavior with hidden task-specific executable test cases. The benchmark relies on an LLM-assisted, emulation-grounded pipeline, which converts human-oriented network materials into reusable parameterized task templates. We evaluate representative LLM agents on 480 task instances instantiated from 96 protocol-focused task templates, yielding 3840 execution trajectories, and show that failures are not limited to command errors. The failures also reveal gaps in task-specification adherence and robust planning and execution. These findings suggest two future directions: using validated trajectories as supervision signals to improve foundation models, and designing harness mechanisms that make agent execution more reliable and accountable.

Large language model agents are typically deployed with predefined configurations, although the required model capability, context, tools, permissions, memory, and computational resources can vary substantially across tasks. This study develops and evaluates AgentBetta, an adaptive AI Nano-Agent framework that represents these factors as an executable configuration and updates them through verification-driven diagnosis, selective expansion, and verification-based counterfactual contraction. The evaluation distinguishes controlled mechanism validation from external agent comparisons. On the AB-ConfigBench benchmark, AgentBetta achieved 91.38% verified success while reducing median context allocation from 64,000 to 8,000 context characters and median tool exposure from five tools to zero compared with the fully provisioned configuration. The configuration-deficiency diagnosis achieved a macro-F1 score of 0.819 with precision of 1.000 across the evaluated dimensions, and selective expansion avoided unnecessary changes to unrelated configuration dimensions. Post-success contraction preserved verification outcomes in 56.41% of evaluated one-dimension contraction probes, indicating that some successful configurations contained removable capability under the tested conditions. External evaluations indicate that adaptive configuration can improve the balance between verified task completion and capability exposure; however, the results vary across benchmarks and agent families. In particular, the cross-family replication did not reproduce the primary-backbone accuracy ordering, and specialized systems remained advantageous for certain task domains. These results support interpreting AgentBetta as a configuration-adaptation mechanism that regulates capability allocation and inference expenditure rather than as a universal replacement for specialized agent architectures.

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.