CalibForge: Adversarial Solver Calibration for Scaling Learnable Terminal Tasks

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.

Training terminal agents at scale requires diverse, verifiable terminal tasks and high-quality interaction trajectories, yet acquiring such data remains a significant challenge. Existing synthesis methods face two key limitations: (1) weak reliability caused by the disconnect between task generation and real execution, and (2) limited diversity and scalability due to dependence on existing repositories. We propose Meta-Task, a framework that redefines terminal task synthesis as a Terminal-Bench-format task itself: an agent operates within a real container environment to iteratively generate, execute, and verify tasks, so that synthesized components are checked for internal consistency and executability within the generation loop itself. Building upon this, we decouple the target task requirements along multiple dimensions, introduce a multi-phase mechanism that dynamically designs novel task specifications before producing the actual tasks, and incorporate optional external material support to enhance diversity and realism. We additionally apply LLM-as-Judge filtering to ensure the quality of the final training data. Experiments on Terminal-Bench 2.0 show that fine-tuning on only 3,221 Meta-Task synthesized trajectories achieves 22.5% and 31.8% Avg Pass@1 for Qwen3-14B and Qwen3-32B respectively, outperforming concurrent approaches with significantly less training data.

Terminal agents are increasingly capable of executing complex, long-horizon tasks autonomously from a single user prompt. To do so, they must interpret instructions encountered in the environment (e.g., README files, code comments, stack traces) and determine their relevance to the task. This creates a fundamental challenge: relevant cues must be followed to complete a task, whereas irrelevant or misleading ones must be ignored. Existing benchmarks do not capture this ability. An agent may appear capable by blindly following all instructions, or appear robust by ignoring them altogether. We introduce TAB (Task Alignment Benchmark), a suite of 89 terminal tasks derived from Terminal-Bench 2.1. Each task is intentionally underspecified, with missing information provided as a necessary cue embedded in a natural environmental artifact, alongside a plausible but irrelevant distractor. Solving these tasks requires selectively using the cue while ignoring the distractor. Applying TAB to ten frontier agents reveals a systematic gap between task capability and task alignment. The strongest Terminal-Bench agent achieves high task completion but low task alignment on TAB. Evaluating six prompt-injection defenses further shows that suppressing distractor execution also suppresses the cues required for task completion. These results demonstrate that task-aligned agents require selective use of environmental instructions rather than blanket acceptance or rejection.