CFAgentBench: A Reproducible Environment and Benchmark for Autonomous Construction-Finance Agents

Financial scenarios are diverse and complex, spanning varying data conditions, tool configurations, and workflows. Yet existing CUA, Computer-Using Agent, evaluation tasks remain largely manually constructed, limiting scalable coverage of real-world financial scenarios. Then, can agents autonomously construct diverse CUA evaluation tasks for financial scenarios? Evaluating this capability poses three key challenges: scenario coverage of construction requests, fair comparison across construction methods, and reliable assessment of generated task quality. To solve these, we introduce FinCUABuildBench, a benchmark for evaluating financial CUA task construction, featuring: (i) 576 construction requests covering 24 financial workflows and three types of runtime variation; (ii) standardized input, budget, and output specifications; and (iii) a task qualification mechanism based on execution tests and quality checks. We further introduce FinCUABuildAgent, a multi-agent system for automatically constructing dynamic financial CUA evaluation tasks. It consists of three modules that jointly construct tasks, environments, and validators. On FinCUABuildBench, under the same model backbone, existing agent-based construction methods achieve strict qualification rates of only 1.3-8.3%, while FinCUABuildAgent reaches 31.3%. Downstream evaluations further show that the constructed tasks can effectively differentiate CUA task-execution capabilities. These results demonstrate that agents can autonomously construct financial CUA tasks with meaningful evaluation value, offering a practical path toward broader evaluation coverage in financial scenarios. Code: https://github.com/FengxianJi/FinCUABuild

Most agent benchmarks evaluate tasks independently and cannot measure whether experience from one task helps with later tasks. Existing self-evolution benchmarks do not jointly cover professional workflows, open-ended deliverables, and multi-aspect evaluation. We introduce FinEvo-Bench, a longitudinal benchmark with 120 real-case-grounded tasks, 20 business scenes across six financial domains. Institution-provided professional procedures define the required operations and constraints. Eligible institution-provided and publicly documented cases supply the task facts. Each scene contains six related but substantively distinct cases that share a professional procedure and a manually reviewed rubric for task quality and financial compliance. We compare four self-evolving agent scaffolds using the same Qwen3.7-Max backbone and three independently shuffled, globally interleaved task streams. Paired non-evolving controls estimate each scaffold's self-evolution gain from retained experience, while an independent Claude Code scoring agent backed by Claude Opus 4.6 evaluates all outputs. Letta achieves the highest evolved score (91.65) and fewest compliance issues (0.09 per task); Codex achieves the largest self-evolution gain (+19.37). Across scaffolds, the evolving condition raises scores by 9.33-19.37 points and reduces compliance issues by 0.12-0.44 per task. Paired score gains at within-scene ranks 4-6 exceed those at ranks 1-3 by 6.10-8.70 points. In Claude Code, skill-only evolution produces higher task quality and fewer compliance issues than memory-only and combined memory-skill evolution. Across all four scaffolds, rubric feedback also yields higher scores and fewer compliance issues than reference-answer feedback. FinEvo-Bench measures both professional performance and self-evolution ability: how effectively an agent turns prior experience into later improvement.

LLM agents are rapidly becoming production software, deployed to handle customer service, adjudicate disputes, and operate internal systems. Notably, the work of building them is increasingly handed to coding agents, yet existing benchmarks say little about whether an AI system can deliver one under the conditions of a real client engagement. We introduce $\tau^\tau$-bench (pronounced hyper-tau-bench), a benchmark that makes agent construction the task. A developer agent is given the records a business actually keeps, a client who holds requirements, a production API that operations must run through, a codebase to inherit, and limits on serving cost and models: the same starting point a real engagement provides. From these it must deliver a complete customer-service agent, scored by deploying that agent against held-out simulated users. Across 53 tasks spanning four domains, the strongest configuration, Claude Opus 5 under Claude Code, passes just 23.9% of evaluation simulations. Meanwhile, an expert-authored reference ceiling scores 82.2%. The failures mirror ones human agent developers see: models issue shallow queries in place of deep comprehension of the records, communicate almost nothing to the client, and experiment too little with agent architecture and serving spend, shipping the first design that runs. We aim for $\tau^\tau$-bench to turn the work of cooperative agent building into a measurable target for coding agents.