Evaluating Agentic Harness Systems for Autonomous Computational Pathology

Computational pathology has advanced rapidly with the emergence of foundation models, yet widespread adoption remains limited by substantial technical complexity and programming requirements. Here we present PathLab, an autonomous agentic framework that translates natural-language research objectives into executable and validated computational pathology workflows through the structured composition of domain-specific skills and tools. By organizing workflow generation around reusable methodological modules, including data preprocessing, model development, evaluation and interpretation, PathLab enables studies to be specified at the level of scientific intent rather than implementation details. We evaluated PathLab across 12 public datasets spanning four representative task families: region-of-interest classification, whole-slide image classification, segmentation and survival prediction. Across all task categories, PathLab achieved non-inferior performance relative to expert implementations, while consistently enforcing semantic validity of user prompts and proactively rejecting incompatible workflow specifications prior to execution. In controlled user studies, PathLab substantially reduced the time required to generate executable analytical pipelines and enabled domain experts without programming experience to independently design, execute and evaluate computational pathology studies. Together, these results establish PathLab as a reliable interface between biomedical intent and computational execution, enabling computational pathology studies to be designed at the level of scientific questions rather than programming expertise. By lowering technical barriers to advanced AI methodologies, PathLab provides a foundation for the broader democratization of computational pathology.

Computer-use agents could automate repetitive screen-based clinical work, but their reliability in medical graphical user interfaces remains largely unvalidated. Existing benchmarks focus on general web or desktop tasks and underrepresent medical software, which requires domain knowledge, exhibits markedly different UI design from mainstream applications, lacks public testing environments, and demands safety validation beyond task completion. We introduce MedCUA-Bench, an interactive benchmark for clinical computer-use agents. It covers 18 clinical scenarios across 10 medical domains, reconstructed from real product manuals and open-source medical systems to capture authentic clinical interfaces while avoiding licensing and privacy constraints. Each task ships with paired intent- and step-level goals to disentangle clinical reasoning from UI execution, and is evaluated by a deterministic checker over task completion and five clinical safety dimensions. Across 23 agents, the best closed-source model reaches 54.2% strict success, while all models remain below 9% on the real OpenEMR. Open-source agents average only 2.5%, with the best reaching 16.2%. MedCUA-Bench exposes the gap between current agents and reliable clinical software use, providing a reproducible testbed for future research.

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.