Ignorance or Incompetence? Constructing Knowledge-Gated, Verifiable Tasks for LLM Agents

Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate's ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the $\tau^2$-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5% of them failing the customer's task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate's ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from $<$1% on wide-reward pairs to 31% on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.

Agent skills encode reusable procedural knowledge for large language model (LLM) agents, and existing benchmarks show that such skills can improve task-level performance. However, a task outcome does not reveal which parts of a reusable skill were exercised, nor whether the agent followed the relevant skill instructions when those parts were exercised. This gap makes it unclear whether a skill has been adequately tested, or whether observed task failures provide actionable evidence for improving agent skill effectiveness. To fill this gap, we introduce skill coverage, a trajectory-based test-adequacy metric for reusable agent skills. Our framework extracts skill behavior constraints from each skill, translating natural-language skill instructions into semi-structured constraints that specify the expected agent behavior under particular conditions. It then determines whether each constraint is covered by an agent trajectory and, for covered constraints, assigns a Pass or Fail verdict according to the agent behavior. We apply this framework to SkillsBench. The results show that agent trajectories on the benchmark leaderboard cover only 38.66 to 45.51% of the extracted skill behavior constraints on average. We then use Fail verdicts to strengthen the corresponding skill content only by emphasizing the original instructions that the agent failed to follow, and run the same tasks with the strengthened skills. This emphasis yields an average 16.0% recovery rate of the failed tasks across the five agent-model rows. These results show that skill coverage is both a test-adequacy metric and a fine-grained signal for observing skill-use behavior. In failed tasks, failed constraint labels provide actionable evidence for improving agent skill effectiveness. A project website accompanies the paper.

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.