CRAFT: An Agentic Spreadsheet Form Filling System with Template Awareness

Spreadsheet agents are converging on elaborate multi-agent designs, yet it is unclear how much of their performance comes from the agents rather than from the action interface they share. We answer this with SheetMind, a Manager-Action-Reflection framework, in a controlled study over all 221 tasks of the SheetCopilot Benchmark: five architectural variants, four backbones, exact McNemar tests on paired outcomes, and a checker reproducing the official chart and pivot comparisons. Replacing the high-level action API with primitive cell operations costs 47.1 points (p < 0.0001) and leaves the agent below a do-nothing baseline, whereas both extra agents together are worth 3.2 points: the Reflection Agent adds +4.5 (p = 0.013), the Manager +1.4 (p = 0.68). Decomposition instead changes how the system fails, cutting silently wrong outputs from 33% to 25% of tasks (p = 0.010). Capability saturates: GPT-5 and the five-times-cheaper GPT-5-mini are not significantly different (61.1% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.15), while GPT-3.5 loses 16.3 points and fails differently. A reflector must judge the step it just took, not the subtask. SheetMind reaches 61.1% Pass@1 with GPT-5 on the full SCB-221, against a do-nothing baseline of 9.0%. Accuracy comes from the operations an agent can name; the agents decide how it fails.

Spreadsheets are widely used for business analysis, financial modeling, reporting, and decision-making. However, most existing spreadsheet benchmarks evaluate isolated operations such as single-formula generation or local cell edits, and therefore fail to capture end-to-end workflows in realistic business settings. We introduce SpreadsheetBench 2, a workflow-level benchmark for spreadsheet agents that covers three task categories: generation, debugging, and visualization. The benchmark is constructed from authentic business data, including financial reports and corporate filings, and is annotated and validated by domain experts. The benchmark contains 321 tasks; each instance averages 11.8 worksheets and requires 593.5 cell modifications, reflecting large multi-sheet workbooks with cross-sheet dependencies. We evaluate eight frontier large language models under a unified multi-turn agent scaffold, and additionally include several LLM-based spreadsheet products as complementary baselines. Results show that current systems remain far from reliable on real-world workflows: the best model achieves 34.89% overall task accuracy, and debugging accuracy is as low as 12.00%. Trajectory analysis and a failure taxonomy further indicate that insufficient spreadsheet inspection and incorrect target-cell selection are the dominant bottlenecks. Together, these findings position SpreadsheetBench 2 as a challenging testbed for advancing reliable spreadsheet automation. Project page: https://spreadsheetbench.github.io/

Spreadsheets are the lingua franca of modern finance, driving valuation, forecast, audit, and many other core workflows of the industry. As LLM agents advance to automate knowledge work, spreadsheet construction is a natural and pertinent testbed. However, most existing spreadsheet benchmarks evaluate agents on fill-in-the-blank style tasks, where an agent performs minor edits in otherwise complete spreadsheets. This protocol fails to capture the most central and time-consuming part of the spreadsheet workflow: the modeling decisions, format design, and sheet layout regular knowledge workers need to toil through to build a workbook from scratch. We introduce MBABench-2.0, a benchmark of 101 original spreadsheet construction tasks, the hardest of which is estimated to take 33 hours for a modeler with 3+ years of experience. Unlike coding or math, where a unit test or a final answer can verify an agent's output, the quality of a financial spreadsheet that concerns readability, maintainability, or auditability, is not so simply verifiable. To holistically evaluate spreadsheet construction, we introduce 129 criteria spanning 12 categories that operationalize quality beyond the accuracy of the spreadsheet. Evaluating over 20 agents across 8 models and 4 harness types, we find that frontier agents rarely construct spreadsheets that are both accurate and meet our quality criteria: the top agent achieves a pass rate of only 16% on the benchmark. The benchmark demonstrates a substantial gap in spreadsheet building capability of current agents.