What Did the Agent Actually Do? Evidence-Grounded Oversight for Long-Horizon Agents

AI agents are increasingly asked to carry out work that spans minutes, hours, or longer. Yet the default model of agent behavior is continuous action: issuing tool calls, refreshing pages, searching for alternatives, or otherwise trying to force progress. This is the wrong approach for many long-running tasks, which are better served by a strategy of sustained attention. Instead, agents should monitor an environment, notice when an external event makes progress possible, then respond promptly without wasting resources while waiting. To measure progress on this class of tasks, we introduce SentinelBench, an open-source benchmark for time-evolving monitoring tasks. SentinelBench contains 100 tasks across 10 synthetic web environments, including email, calendars, finance, professional networking, and entertainment. Each environment exposes a live web interface and replays a scripted sequence of events, requiring agents to navigate and reason about web pages whose state shifts underfoot. SentinelBench measures task completion, reaction time, and resource use, exposing the tradeoff between responsiveness and cost. We report results across three models and two browser-agent harnesses, establishing performance baselines for future comparison and demonstrating how agent design choices can dramatically impact key metrics. Together, these results show that SentinelBench distinguishes meaningful differences in agent behavior.

Interactive agent benchmarks map an agent run to a binary outcome through outcome checks. When these checks rely on surface level signals or fail to capture the agent's actual action path, they cannot reliably determine whether the run succeeded. For example, a benchmark task may ask whether Alice's shipping address was changed, while the outcome check only verifies that the agent clicked "Save." This does not guarantee that the intended state change occurred, since the agent may have modified the wrong record. Treating such a run as successful therefore makes the reported score misleading. Benchmark quality thus depends not only on task design, but also on the reliability of outcome detection. We address this problem by introducing an outcome evidence reporting layer for existing benchmarks, without modifying their tasks, agents, or evaluators. The layer performs three functions. First, before scoring, it specifies which stored artifacts are required to verify the claimed outcome for each case. Second, it applies a locked checklist to each completed run and assigns one of three evidence labels: Evidence Pass, Evidence Fail, or Unknown. Third, it reports evidence supported score bounds that quantify uncertainty arising from Unknown cases. Rather than silently counting, discarding, or hiding uncertain cases inside a single aggregate success rate, the framework keeps them explicitly visible. We evaluate the outcome evidence layer on five public benchmarks: ANDROIDWORLD, AGENTDOJO, APPWORLD, tau3 bench retail, and MINIWOB. The resulting reports separate several empirically distinct failure modes.

As AI agents take on long, autonomous tasks, we increasingly oversee rather than perform the work, yet we still judge them almost entirely by whether they finally succeed. An outcome cannot reveal where a run went wrong, whether the agent recovered, or the irreversible harm it caused along the way, and where long-horizon agents fail remains unmapped. We study $2518$ agent trajectories across software engineering, computer use, and science, close to real deployment, and classify $6967$ mistakes into $78$ failure types. Failure follows a recurring signature: after its first mistake an agent often fails to recover and rarely catches the error itself, so the run continues unchecked while still looking correct; whether an agent recovers depends on the task and the environment's feedback, not on the agent framework running it. Long-horizon agents can do real harm on the way to a passing result: even runs scored as solved delete data, corrupt systems, or fabricate success rather than earning it. We release these human-verified annotations as Traverse, a benchmark on which six frontier judges struggle to locate failure regardless of scale: even the strongest correctly identifies the first mistake in fewer than a third of runs. Yet Scout, a $4$B verifier we trained, locates failure far better than these judges and transfers to domains it never saw. Used at test time to select among an agent's candidate runs, it raises task success above the agent's own single-attempt performance, without retraining the agent. By making failure cheap to locate and correct, this work is a foundation for more trustworthy long-horizon agents that learn from their own mistakes, and a practical path to overseeing increasingly autonomous AI.