Predicting Task Difficulty Without Rollouts

As agent capabilities advance, existing benchmarks, such as $τ^2$-Bench, are becoming increasingly saturated. Yet constructing new benchmark tasks remains complex, costly, and labor-intensive. Moreover, the standard approach, in which scenarios are first written in natural language and then mapped to tool sequences, captures only a narrow subset of the tool-use patterns agents exercise. In this paper, we address these problems by reversing the task construction process. We propose TASTE: Task Synthesis from Tool Sequence Evolution, an automatic method that generates challenging tasks with broader tool-use coverage. TASTE utilizes an Adaptive Contrastive $n$-gram model trained on LLM-judged validity signals. This enables sampling valid tool sequences that cover a vast range of tool combinations. TASTE then selects representative sequences from the pool via clustering, instantiates them into complete benchmark tasks, and refines them through iterative difficulty evolution. Using TASTE, we construct $τ^c$-Bench, a challenging extension of the three domains of $τ^2$-Bench. We evaluate $11$ agent/user LLM pairs and find that models nearly saturating $τ^2$-Bench suffer severe performance drops on our tasks (e.g., Gemini-3-Flash falls from $0.82\!-\!0.94$ to $0.28\!-\!0.61$). Beyond increasing difficulty, our generated tasks more than double the number of unique tool combinations agents must execute. Our results suggest high scores on existing benchmarks often reflect saturation rather than robust task-solving ability. By automating the generation of difficult, high-coverage benchmarks, TASTE enables continuous, scalable evaluation of future agents.

Progress in large language models is often summarized using a single scalar measure, such as a time horizon, a latent ability estimate, or an aggregate benchmark score. These summaries capture the overall performance, but they do not test whether progress is distributed differently across task difficulty. We find that most of the apparent shift in gains toward harder tasks does not reflect a change in the shape of the difficulty-response curve. On METR time-horizon data, a single Rasch model with rising ability reproduces this pattern, so it is largely explained by ceiling effects rather than a qualitative change in capability. This echoes how the choice of metric can make claimed emergent abilities look like a property of the models themselves. We then identify a smaller hard-task effect that survives this control. Isolating it is difficult on agentic benchmarks, because newer models are usually run with newer agentic harnesses, so a gain on hard tasks cannot be assigned to the model or its scaffold. We break the confound with LiveCodeBench, a public competitive programming benchmark that runs no agentic scaffold while pairing dated models with an exogenous difficulty ordering. After accounting for the rise in overall ability, models released after September 2024 still gain on the hardest problems beyond what their easy and medium performance predicts, by about +0.40 logits under our most conservative assumption, raising the hard-problem solve rate from roughly 18% to 25%. The effect is led by the strongest reasoning models and holds for hard tasks that need only short reasoning, not autonomy over long horizons. We present this as a result specific to competitive programming, since our clean identification rests on a single coding benchmark. We release the LiveCodeBench Difficulty Panel (66 dated models x 1,055 problems) and our analysis code.

Terminal-agent benchmarks have become a primary signal for measuring the coding and system-administration capabilities of large language models. As the market for evaluation environments grows, so does the pressure to ship tasks quickly, often without thorough adversarial review of the verification logic. This paper is a guideline for writing good benchmark tasks, drawn from over a year of contributing to and reviewing tasks for Terminal Bench. Most people write benchmark tasks the way they write prompts. They shouldn't. A prompt is designed to help the agent succeed; a benchmark is designed to find out if it can. We argue that good tasks are adversarial, difficult, and legible, and that a large class of common failure modes -- AI-generated instructions, over-prescriptive specifications, clerical difficulty, oracle solutions that assume hidden knowledge, tests that validate the wrong things, and reward-hackable environments -- are predictable consequences of treating task authoring as prompt authoring. We catalog these failure modes, argue that real difficulty is conceptual rather than environmental, and discuss recent empirical evidence that over 15% of tasks in popular terminal-agent benchmarks are reward-hackable. We hope this serves as a useful reference for benchmark maintainers, task contributors, and researchers using benchmark scores as evidence.