FinCUABuild: Can Agents Build Reliable Benchmarks for Dynamic Financial Computer Use?

We introduce CFAgentBench, a reproducible, self-hostable environment and benchmark for autonomous construction-finance agents: a CFO/controller-class agent operating across the real software stack a US construction finance team runs - ERP, project management, email, documents, pay applications, payroll, certified payroll, lien waivers, and bank/treasury portals. It contains 1,014 machine-gradeable task specifications across 8 domains and 77 families, every family grounded in a real source; a self-validated subset of 40 tasks (54 with a project-management extension) is compiled into oracle-validated executable evaluators, the runnable suite reported here. Following WebArena, the benchmark runs on an executable environment rather than static traces: 35 mock applications (31 reconciled to one company book, plus 4 PM platforms) over 9 archetypes, each implementing a uniform self-hostable app contract, so every task is graded by functional correctness - a state diff plus forbidden-side-effect checks plus required-output regexes - with an LLM judge used only for reply quality, never as reward. A distinguishing principle is a money-movement guard: 278 instances embed a payment, payroll, e-signature, or e-filing step where the correct behavior is to stop and stage for human approval, and executing even the correct transaction fails the task. The public split (n=711) is sized for a 95% Wilson half-width of +/-4.1%; a private, contamination-protected split (n=303) is reserved for remote scoring. In a first three-model open-weight sweep (k=5), the strongest agent reaches pass^1 = 0.67 but only pass^5 = 0.38 - losing 43% of its successes when required to repeat them under temperature-0 decoding. The within-model pass^1 to pass^5 collapse and sharp per-domain heterogeneity are clear evidence that single-attempt accuracy overstates deployable construction-finance competence.

Evaluating financial AI agents requires criteria aligned with real professional work. Existing rubric methods typically derive criteria from task prompts or model outputs, overlooking tacit standards visible only in practitioner deliverables. We introduce FinProBench, a benchmark for professional financial tasks, and Role-Grounded Rubric Construction (RGRC), a reusable pipeline that derives rubrics from deliverables produced by practitioners in the same role. RGRC comprises four stages: Deliverable Collection, Competency Extraction, Rubric Synthesis, and Validation. Its rubrics capture tacit standards, distinguish quality levels, and transfer across tasks within a role. Before analysis, we classified 57 occupations by deliverable genre into 30 prior-rich conventional roles and 27 prior-sparse role-specialized roles. Across all roles, Prompt-only nearly matches RGRC for conventional roles (89.2% vs. 90.7%), but RGRC substantially outperforms it for role-specialized roles (99.1% vs. 78.0%). This split indicates that prompt engineering can approximate rubrics when conventions are well represented in model priors, while professional grounding is essential for standards beyond those priors. FinProBench is built from 1,723 curated deliverables spanning 57 occupations, 8 financial sub-industries, and 161 deliverable types, and releases an initial evaluation set of 20 complete tasks covering 20 roles in 7 sub-industries. With heterogeneous LLM judges and role-level rubrics, human deliverables rank first on average (73.7 vs. 70.3, 70.2, and 69.6 out of 100), while all four systems show overlapping 95% confidence intervals and complementary strengths. Reusing rubrics at the role level reduces estimated per-task construction effort by 6.7 times relative to authoring each rubric from scratch.

Most agent benchmarks evaluate tasks independently and cannot measure whether experience from one task helps with later tasks. Existing self-evolution benchmarks do not jointly cover professional workflows, open-ended deliverables, and multi-aspect evaluation. We introduce FinEvo-Bench, a longitudinal benchmark with 120 real-case-grounded tasks, 20 business scenes across six financial domains. Institution-provided professional procedures define the required operations and constraints. Eligible institution-provided and publicly documented cases supply the task facts. Each scene contains six related but substantively distinct cases that share a professional procedure and a manually reviewed rubric for task quality and financial compliance. We compare four self-evolving agent scaffolds using the same Qwen3.7-Max backbone and three independently shuffled, globally interleaved task streams. Paired non-evolving controls estimate each scaffold's self-evolution gain from retained experience, while an independent Claude Code scoring agent backed by Claude Opus 4.6 evaluates all outputs. Letta achieves the highest evolved score (91.65) and fewest compliance issues (0.09 per task); Codex achieves the largest self-evolution gain (+19.37). Across scaffolds, the evolving condition raises scores by 9.33-19.37 points and reduces compliance issues by 0.12-0.44 per task. Paired score gains at within-scene ranks 4-6 exceed those at ranks 1-3 by 6.10-8.70 points. In Claude Code, skill-only evolution produces higher task quality and fewer compliance issues than memory-only and combined memory-skill evolution. Across all four scaffolds, rubric feedback also yields higher scores and fewer compliance issues than reference-answer feedback. FinEvo-Bench measures both professional performance and self-evolution ability: how effectively an agent turns prior experience into later improvement.