MOAE: Multi-Objective Agent Evolution with Pareto-Preserving Search

Recent work on self-evolving LLM agents treats the agent harness as an optimization target that can be iteratively improved through execution feedback. Existing approaches, however, largely optimize a single objective and evolve the harness as a monolithic artifact, limiting their ability to handle competing goals and to separate transferable design from environment-specific adaptation. We introduce Harmony Harness, a framework for multi-objective, compositional harness evolution. Harmony Harness formulates harness evolution as a multi-objective optimization problem and uses decomposition-based evolutionary search to maintain solutions across different regions of the Pareto frontier, avoiding reliance on a hand-designed structural diversity metric for repository-scale harnesses. In parallel, we introduce factorized evolution operators that separately refine general-purpose harness mechanisms and benchmark-specific adaptations, together with a dynamic composition workflow that integrates them at inference time. Across SecRepoBench and BaxBench, Harmony Harness consistently outperforms strong harness-evolution baselines, with gains exceeding 10% on both benchmarks. Our results show that explicitly modeling both objective trade-offs and harness structure yields substantially stronger and more transferable agent evolution than existing single-objective, monolithic approaches.

2026 has brought an explosion of interest in LLM-guided evolution of agentic artifacts, with systems like GEPA and Autoresearch demonstrating that LLMs can iteratively improve prompts, code, and agent architectures across diverse domains. As adoption accelerates, a central question emerges: given the same information, the same seed agent, and the same objective, which optimization algorithm yields the best results under the same evaluation budget? This question becomes critical when evaluations are expensive, such as when they require human judgment or multiple LLM calls. We present the first systematic comparison of three optimization paradigms -- Elo tournament selection (RoboPhD), Pareto-based selection (GEPA), and greedy hill-climbing (Autoresearch) -- across four benchmarks spanning abstract reasoning, cloud scheduling, SQL generation, and financial QA, all under a fixed budget of 1,500 evaluations. RoboPhD introduces validation-free evolution: instead of splitting the budget between training and validation, it uses Elo competition on training data to simultaneously evaluate agents and drive evolution. All three systems receive seed agents with diagnostic print() statements that evolution can grow, enabling self-instrumenting agents that develop increasingly informative diagnostics for the benefit of their evolutionary successors. Using a single default configuration, RoboPhD outperforms both GEPA and Autoresearch on three of four benchmarks, losing only on the simplest task, where the winning solution (from our Autoresearch adaptation) required under 90 lines of code. On ARC-AGI, RoboPhD evolves a 22-line seed agent into a 1,013-line multi-strategy system, improving accuracy from 27.8% to 65.8% using Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite as the solver. We release RoboPhD as a versatile toolkit under the MIT license with a simple optimize_anything() API for evolving diverse complex agents.

LLM agents organize behavior through skills -- structured natural-language specifications that govern how an agent reasons, retrieves, and responds. Unlike monolithic prompts, skills are multi-field artifacts with platform limits: descriptions are indexed for routing, instruction bodies are loaded into a shared context window, and every extra line costs the agent context it could spend elsewhere. Skill optimization is therefore inherently multi-objective: a skill should be accurate and economical at once. Existing prompt optimizers collapse these goals into a single score, and we find that this makes them stall: in most of their runs, 1000 rollouts yield zero progress over the seed skill. We introduce MOCHA (Multi-Objective CHebyshev Annealing), which selects skills to improve by Chebyshev scalarization and accepts improvements that expand the Pareto front, annealing from exploration to exploitation. Chebyshev scalarization scores a skill by its largest weighted shortfall from a perfect skill; with random weights, it can select any skill on the Pareto front for improvement, including trade-offs that an average would never favor. Across six diverse skills and two models, MOCHA escapes the seed in nearly every run, achieving 7.9% higher mean accuracy than the strongest baseline (up to 23.7% on DebugBench with GPT 5.5 and 14.9% on FEVER with Claude Haiku 4.5) while discovering Pareto fronts with the highest hypervolume and nearly twice as many Pareto-optimal skills.