More Programs or More Rolls? Separating Coverage from Specialization in LLM Harnesses

Many LLM applications are most useful when they provide several candidate outputs for comparison, validation, or combination. Predominant evaluation settings, however, still focus on individual outputs or reduce multiple samples to a single success or selected answer. This can miss whether the outputs include several genuinely different useful results. We introduce VTC-Bench, a five-domain benchmark for this setting, together with Validated Task Coverage (VTC) as its core evaluation quantity. The benchmark is built from carefully selected real-data tasks where both output quality and task-relevant distinctness can be checked automatically and reproducibly, without model-based judges. VTC measures how many distinct useful results are obtained within $k$ attempts. Across multiple models and inference settings, the benchmark leads to different conclusions from conventional evaluation: configurations that look strongest from single-draw quality are not necessarily those with the best coverage, and simple measures of output variation do not reliably recover task-relevant coverage. These results show that finite candidate sets can be evaluated directly as objects of interest, revealing differences in model behavior that are not apparent from conventional per-output evaluation.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed within agentic systems, their capabilities depend not only on the model weights but also on the harness: the prompts, tools, control flow, memory, and orchestration code surrounding them. This makes automated harness optimization -- the iterative and evaluation-guided improvement of a harness by an AI system -- both an important route to improving AI systems and a demanding capability for AI systems themselves. Yet the community lacks a common protocol for measuring how well frontier LLMs perform at this task. We introduce HarnessOpt-Bench, a benchmark for end-to-end harness optimization under expensive and stochastic evaluation. An optimizer, an LLM paired with a coding harness, receives a target agent's seed harness, graded evaluation feedback, and a fixed target-evaluation budget. It edits the harness and nominates a final candidate, which is scored by its normalized gain over the seed on a held-out test partition that remains inaccessible throughout search. A trusted execution environment enforces the evaluation boundary, meters target-agent resource use, and preserves candidate versions for audit. We evaluate 5 frontier LLMs as optimizers both under a shared coding harness and under their native harnesses across 4 downstream tasks, over 111 scored runs. Experiment results show that optimizer models separate more than the coding harnesses they act through, native harnesses are not consistently superior, and gains vary substantially across tasks and seed regimes. These results establish harness optimization as a measurable and discriminative capability with large space for improvement.

A benchmark score is a measurement whose uncertainty has two sources: an aleatoric component from stochastic decoding and an epistemic component from the finite problem set. Using 16 models on 99 recent LeetCode-style problems with two prompts and five runs each (15,840 judged runs in a fully crossed design), we estimate both components and ask a design question: how much can repeated running buy? First, the pooled-binomial interval that repeated-run protocols invite answers neither question of interest---it is about $2\times$ too narrow for generalisation to new problems and $2\times$ too wide for the fixed problem set---and under correctly clustered intervals, 12 of 15 adjacent leaderboard pairs are statistically unresolved. Second, the variance ceiling $1+μ_w/σ_b^2$, the largest factor by which repetition can reduce score variance, has median 1.34 across models (range 1.05--1.71), so repetition can narrow confidence intervals by at most 23% on this benchmark, and by 14% for the median model. Third, once the cost of adding verified problems is priced in, the precision-optimal repeat count is $R^{*}=\sqrt{μ_w c_p/(σ_b^2 c_g)}$, and the variance curve is flat around it: on this benchmark the decisive reason to repeat is not precision but identification---two to three runs suffice to estimate the components that the ceiling and the fixed-benchmark interval require. All three are measurements of one benchmark at one decoding temperature, and we state explicitly what they do and do not license.