Scaffold Effects on GAIA: A Controlled Comparison

AI agent performance is not just a modeling problem, it is fundamentally a systems problem. The advanced capabilities of models are realized through agent harnesses. Therefore, a gap between model assumptions and harness behavior can easily prevent the model's full capabilities from translating into agent performance. We formalize this as the intent-execution' gap: the mismatch between what the model intends and what the harness executes, and vice versa. We argue that minimizing this intent-execution gap is as important as other aspects of harness design such as tools and execution loops. To illustrate the impact of this harness-model alignment, we develop a simple and customizable harness called Simple Strands Agent' (SSA). SSA aims to find the bulk of common patterns which generalize across different model families (such as Claude, Gemini, GPT, Grok, Qwen), as well as a small number of model-specific preferences. We make two contributions: (i) we reproduce or improve on the pass@1 performance reported by diverse model-provider families on popular agentic benchmarks (SWE-Pro, SWE-Verified and Terminal-Bench-2), and (ii) building on an analysis of 138k trajectories generated by SSA, we look beyond the pass@1 numbers which tend to be relatively even across frontier models. By representing agent trajectories in code state-spaces, we observe model-level differences in problem-solving behavior. Finer-grained metrics such as edit frequency, testing activity, and phase-transitions reveal how individual models allocate effort across different stages of autonomous problem solving.

Production agentic systems make many model calls per user request, and most of those calls are short, structured, and routine. This raises a practical routing question that existing evaluations do not directly answer: which parts of an agent workflow truly require large frontier intelligence, and which can be handled by smaller models? We introduce AgentFloor, a deterministic 30-task benchmark organized as a six-tier capability ladder, spanning instruction following, tool use, multi-step coordination, and long-horizon planning under persistent constraints. We evaluate 16 open-weight models, from 0.27B to 32B parameters, alongside GPT-5 across 16,542 scored runs. Our results reveal a clear boundary of model necessity. Small and mid-sized open-weight models are already sufficient for much of the short-horizon, structured tool use work that dominates real agent pipelines, and in aggregate, the strongest open-weight model matches GPT-5 on our benchmark while being substantially cheaper and faster to run. The gap appears most clearly on long-horizon planning tasks that require sustained coordination and reliable constraint tracking over many steps, where frontier models still hold an advantage, though neither side reaches strong reliability. We also find that this boundary is not explained by scale alone: some failures respond to targeted interventions, but the effects are model-specific rather than universal. These findings suggest a practical design principle for agentic systems: use smaller open-weight models for the broad base of routine actions, and reserve large frontier models for the narrower class of tasks that truly demand deeper planning and control. We release the benchmark, harness, sweep configurations, and full run corpus.

How much an AI coding agent costs to run can depend more on the agent scaffolding that drives it than on the interface through which it reaches its tools. We set out to measure the cost of tool use over the Model Context Protocol (MCP) against tool use over an ordinary command-line interface (CLI), a difference on which published estimates disagree by more than an order of magnitude while resting on practitioner reports that cannot be reproduced. We ran one fixed software task -- six operations against a private online git repository -- across seven agent scaffoldings and five language models, and we verified completion by inspecting the repository state rather than trusting the agent's self-report. The dominant effect was the scaffolding. Two of the seven ship no MCP support at all; they completed every run using only the CLI, which shows that MCP is unnecessary for this class of work, and they were 5.0x to 28x cheaper than the five scaffoldings that do support MCP, comparing CLI runs alone with no MCP server attached anywhere. The effect was largest for a small 27-billion-parameter model running locally, whose cost varied 139x across scaffoldings while it completed the task under all of them. The comparison we set out to make proved unstable: thirteen strictly paired MCP-to-CLI ratios span 0.43x to 29x, with outliers on both sides. The two interfaces separate on the cost of failure, where 12.9 per cent of the money spent on MCP runs bought no completed work against 2.2 per cent on CLI runs, but not on its frequency: failures were equally common in both, in the original runs and in their repetitions alike. Agents frequently ignored the interface they were assigned, so comparisons that do not verify actual behaviour measure an unknown mixture. The harness, the task, the verification and the complete dataset are released as open source.