Cowork agents navigate dependencies across tools and files while adapting to changing user requirements and edits to shared workspaces. Scaling such environments requires maintaining consistency among task objectives, executable resources, user behavior, and success criteria. We introduce Cowork-Gym, a framework that synthesizes Cowork environments through a build-execute-revise loop that uses execution evidence and review feedback to validate and repair generated environments. To capture realistic Cowork dynamics, a stateful user simulator responds to the agent's actions through dialogue and direct edits to the shared workspace. We synthesize 64.9K environments across 14 application scenarios and use them to post-train 9B, 27B, and 35B-A3B Qwen models with supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and on-policy distillation. Averaged across six agentic benchmarks, these models outperform their corresponding base checkpoints by 8.7, 6.4, and 4.1 points, respectively. Ours-27B ranks second overall among the evaluated models and achieves the highest average scores on PawBench and ClawEval, outperforming models with over 100B total parameters on both benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Scale, diversity, and downstream impact of synthesized Cowork environments. Left: Our environment-synthesis pipeline produces 64.9K tasks across 14 top-level scenarios, with representative workspaces illustrating diverse personal and professional workflows. Right: The leaderboard demonstrates the effectiveness of training on these environments: Ours-27B ranks second across six agentic benchmarks and achieves the highest average scores on PawBench and ClawEval among the evaluated models.
Figure 2: Cowork environment packaging and rollout. (a) Each environment is represented as a Harbor-compatible task package augmented with a user simulator, bundling the task instruction, runtime, reference solution, verifier, and user profiles. (b) During rollout, the user simulator communicates with the acting agent. It also observes and edits the shared workspace state in response to the agent’s progress. (c) The resulting trajectory records user messages, agent actions, and tool observations; the hybrid verifier then evaluates it.
Figure 3: Overview of Cowork environment synthesis and agent training. Left: Environment synthesis starts with (a) Task Specification ( Section 3.1 ) and proceeds through (b) the Build–Execute–Revise loop ( Section 3.2 ). Right: (c) Trajectory Generation with stateful user simulation is followed by (d) Filtering ( Section 3.4 ). Bottom: The resulting environments and trajectories support agent training with SFT, RL, and OPD.
Figure 4: Cowork environment synthesis and stateful user simulation. Left: The interaction loop among user, agent, and the environment in the real world. Right: The user simulator runs outside the acting-agent sandbox and conditions each intervention on private user state and current task progress. The .user/ directory stores persistent context; .patch/ provides turn-specific behavioral instructions and authorized workspace updates. The acting agent observes only public messages and the resulting changes( Section 3.3 ).
Table 5
Figure 6: ClawEval performance of Ours-9B, Ours-27B, and Ours-35B-A3B over supervised training, with progress normalized to the final checkpoint.
Model
Single turn
Multi turn
ClawEval
ClawEval-MT
ClawMark
Score
Pass@3 (%)
Score
Pass (%)
Score
Qwen3.6-27B
–
–
73.11
68.9
80.57
71.1
62.33
Ours-27B
✓
–
84.13 +11.02
79.7 +10.8
84.01 +3.44
83.3 +12.2
69.27 +6.94
Ours-27B
✓
✓
85.08 +11.97
80.6 +11.7
84.44 +3.87
81.6 +10.5
72.50 +10.17
Table 3: Effect of interactive supervision on 27B models. Metrics are reported on a 0–100 scale; green badges indicate absolute gains over Qwen3.6-27B.
Training source
QwenPaw SEEN
OpenClaw SEEN
Hermes UNSEEN
Base model
20.0
24.5
15.5
QwenPaw only
29.1 +9.1
27.3 +2.8
22.7 +7.2
OpenClaw only
30.0 +10.0
29.1 +4.6
24.5 +9.0
QwenPaw + OpenClaw
31.8 +11.8
31.8 +7.3
24.5 +9.0
Table 4: Cross-harness generalization of Qwen3.5-9B on PawBench. Results are pass rates; green badges show absolute gains over the base model, with darker shades indicating larger gains.
Selection
ClawEval Avg.
PawBench Pass (%)
ClawMark Avg.
Qwen3.5-9B
Base model
0.6535
24.55
0.3276
No filter
0.7238
27.88
0.3267
NLL
0.7295
29.39
0.4010
RSR
0.7174
28.48
0.3991
Qwen3.6-27B
Table 5: Effect of model-conditioned trajectory filtering across model sizes. NLL and RSR each retain 70% of the candidate trajectories.
Figure 7: Agentic transfer and general-capability retention under OPD. Dashed lines mark SFT teacher performance; exposure is normalized to the final checkpoint.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dimension
Assignment
What it controls
Capabilities
Multi-label
Operations expected to be required by the task.
Application scenario
Single path
Primary domain and use case.
Structure and difficulty
Structured attributes
Anticipated workflow, feedback, and task depth.
User and deliverable
Structured attributes
Target user, output format, style, and length.
Modality
Multi-label
Input and output channels.
Safety and alignment
Multi-label
Relevant risks and expected response behavior.
Appendix
Table 6: The six dimensions of the task taxonomy.
Capability
Scope
Logic_Reasoning
Causal, deductive, abductive, and constraint-based reasoning.
Math_Scientific
Arithmetic, statistical, and scientific calculation.
Code_Manipulation
Code generation, debugging, review, refactoring, and testing.
Tool_Calling
Tool selection, argument construction, and chained tool use.
Knowledge_Retrieval
Evidence extraction, cross-document comparison, and retrieval verification.
Web_Browsing
Web search, page retrieval, extraction, and interaction.
Appendix
Table 7: Capability labels and their scope.
Scenario
Subdomains
Example leaf
Office_Productivity
Email, Calendar, Document, Meeting, Task Management, Expense
Inbox_Triage
Information_Retrieval
Academic, Market, News, Social Platform, Knowledge Base
Literature_Review
Finance_Investment
Stock, Financial Report, Forex, Investment Research
Earnings_Analysis
Software_Engineering
Code, Frontend, DevOps, GitHub, Database
Debugging
Data_Science
Business Intelligence, Financial Analysis, Text Analytics
KPI_Dashboard
Content_Media
Writing, Social Media, Design, Video and Audio
Academic_Writing
Appendix
Table 8: Top-level application scenarios, subdomains, and representative leaves.