AuditKIT: A Unified Evaluation Spine for Benchmarking, Judging, and Comparing Large Language Models and Agentic Systems

We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark. AuditBench consists of 56 language models with implanted hidden behaviors. Each model has one of 14 concerning behaviors--such as sycophantic deference, opposition to AI regulation, or secret geopolitical loyalties--which it does not confess to when directly asked. AuditBench models are highly diverse--some are subtle, while others are overt, and we use varying training techniques both for implanting behaviors and training models not to confess. To demonstrate AuditBench's utility, we develop an investigator agent that autonomously employs a configurable set of auditing tools. By measuring investigator agent success using different tools, we can evaluate their efficacy. Notably, we observe a tool-to-agent gap, where tools that perform well in standalone non-agentic evaluations fail to translate into improved performance when used with our investigator agent. We find that our most effective tools involve scaffolded calls to auxiliary models that generate diverse prompts for the target. White-box interpretability tools can be helpful, but the agent performs best with black-box tools. We also find that audit success varies greatly across training techniques: models trained on synthetic documents are easier to audit than models trained on demonstrations, with better adversarial training further increasing auditing difficulty. We release our models, agent, and evaluation framework to support future quantitative, iterative science on alignment auditing.

Large language model agents reason, call tools, and act autonomously over many steps, but their agentic skills-correctly sequencing tools, planning under dependencies, judging untrusted inputs, and grounding generated arguments-are hard to measure with accuracy-only leaderboards. We present BekchiAI, which addresses both sides: a benchmark for measuring agentic skill and a platform for observing and controlling live agents. The BekchiAI-Benchmark, a suite of 13 tool-using ReAct agents across 7 task categories (arithmetic, structured/SQL, security detection, URL grounding, planning, orchestration, and tool-policy), totalling 2,057 deterministic, committed test tasks. Every task is verifier-checkable gold answers are computed by running canonical SQL against a real database, computing the exact schedule of a directed acyclic graph (DAG), or evaluating closed-form lambdas including adversarial security samples paired with deliberately imperfect signature scanners so a score reflects the model's own judgment, not the copying of an oracle. We define a small set of behavioral metrics beyond accuracy-tool-call adherence, URL hallucination and source-match, and per-model token cost and report a four-model comparison (Qwen3.7-Max, gemma-4-31B-it, gemma4:26b, gpt-oss-120b) whose story is in the per-family spread, not the aggregate. The benchmark runs are executed using the provided evaluation scripts. BekchiAI-Platform is a complementary web-based observability and control layer for deployed agents, providing full token and latency telemetry as well as remote run termination. The benchmark, evaluation tools, and platform are publicly released.

LLM judges are widely used to evaluate agentic tool-calling systems, yet their reliability on structured, dependency-driven workflows remains largely unexamined. We present AgentJudgeBench, the first benchmark to systematically study LLM-as-a-judge reliability for agentic tool-calling over workflow DAGs, as distinct from the broader LLM-as-a-judge task of open-ended text or preference evaluation. The benchmark comprises 3,808 instances spanning six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, evaluated with five generators (3B-70B open-weight models and GPT-5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under paired with- and without-ground-truth conditions. Judge alignment degrades monotonically with task difficulty, 1.5x faster without ground truth, and on hard queries without ground truth all six judges converge to a narrow 77-82% band regardless of scale, revealing a structural ceiling driven primarily by task difficulty, though its height is partly prompt-dependent for weaker generators, that model capacity alone cannot overcome. Ground-truth exposure is not uniformly beneficial: it reduces alignment for GPT-5.4 (1.5 pp) and Gemini-2.5-Pro (3.9 pp), consistent with over-anchoring. Among mitigation strategies, chain-of-thought reasoning and judge temperature both have negligible effect, while structured evaluation rubrics improve alignment by up to 6.5 pp but do not generalize uniformly across judge-generator pairs. With ground truth, QwQ-32B best matches the programmatic reference, while a human validation study identifies GPT-OSS-120B as the most human-aligned judge; without it, frontier judges lead only marginally within the shared ceiling. These results expose fundamental limitations of current LLM judges and yield practical guidelines for reliable evaluation in agentic systems.