DrugHarness: An Evolvable Agent Harness for Computational Drug Discovery
Organizations: Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · China Pharmaceutical University · University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences · Shanghai Jiao Tong University ·
Abstract
Computational drug discovery requires agents to compose scientific operations and adapt to changing evidence and constraints. Here we introduce DrugHarness, an evolvable agent harness coupling composable scientific execution with conditional skill induction. Its environment integrates over 80 scientific operations, biomedical resources and task-specific code, preserving associations among candidates, results and artifacts. From execution trajectories and outcome feedback, DrugHarness induces action hypotheses with observable applicability conditions, recommended actions and supporting evidence. An independent review agent evaluates candidate skills derived from these hypotheses through source verification and, when needed, targeted execution trials. Admitted skills guide subsequent tasks and are revised through feedback. Evaluation on MolBench and SMDD-Bench demonstrates capabilities in molecular screening, optimization and constrained design. Without evolution, DrugHarness exceeds reported MolClaw-CC results by 10.8 percentage points in affinity-comparison accuracy and 55% in mean top-three active hits on MolBench. Retrospective evaluation on skill-development tasks shows that evolution increases Qwen's affinity-comparison accuracy from 62.2% to 81.1% and optimization success from 79.5% to 87.2%. In a prospective HPK1 study, DrugHarness achieves a more favorable median docking score than Biomni among system-specific candidates. A synthesized compound achieves a cellular IC50 of 14.19 nM, a 2.64-fold potency improvement over the best input reference, with activity competitive with two selected compounds designed by experienced medicinal chemists. These results support conditional skill evolution for scientific agents and demonstrate a workflow connecting computational drug design with experimental validation.
Figures & tables
| Method / Runtime | Model | 2D Pharm. | IP | SH | LO | FA |
| SMDD harness | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 47.5 | 0.0 |
| GPT-5.4 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 55.0 | 1.7 | |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 20.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 47.5 | 1.7 | |
| Kimi K2.5 Thinking | 12.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 32.5 | 0.0 | |
| DeepSeek V3.2 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 22.5 | 0.0 | |
| MiniMax M2.7 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 27.5 | 0.0 |
| Method | MolClaw comparison group | CAi | DrugHarness (w/o Evol.) | ||||
| Model | Sonnet 4.6 | Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.7- Max | Qwen3.7- Max | Qwen3.7- Max | GPT5.6- Terra | GPT5.6- Terra |
| Runtime | Claude Code † | Claude Code | N/R | CAi | Codex | Hermes | Codex |
| Screening | |||||||
| Accuracy (%) | 98.0 | 98.0 | 18.0 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 98.0 | 98.0 |
| Precision (%) | — | — | 32.0 | 98.0 | 98.0 | 98.0 | 100.0 |
| Recall (%) | — | — | 44.5 | 97.0 | 97.0 | 98.0 | 99.0 |
| Setting | Screening | Affinity | Virtual screening | Editing | Optimization | |||
| Acc. | Acc. | Hit@3 | Mean Hits@3 | Mean GT rank | Acc. | SR | Valid JSON | |
| w/o Evol. | 96.0 | 62.2 | 60.0 | 0.72 | 29.05 | 97.4 | 79.5 | 87.2 |
| Evol. | 100.0 | 81.1 | 48.0 | 0.64 | 26.01 | 97.4 | 87.2 | 100.0 |
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Property | Tasks | Valid pairs | Positive gain | Mean gain | Scaffold retained |
| LogP | 11 | 10 | 10 | 0.9260 | 4/11 |
| QED | 20 | 19 | 19 | 0.3748 | 3/20 |
| Solubility | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0.7089 | 7/8 |
| Metric | w/o Evol. | Evol. |
| Screening | ||
| Accuracy (%) | 96.0 | 100.0 |
| Precision (%) | 98.0 | 100.0 |
| Recall (%) | 97.0 | 100.0 |
| F1 (%) | 97.3 | 100.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Capability | Tools and resources | Inputs outputs |
|---|---|---|
| Biomedical evidence retrieval | Open Targets ( Buniello et al., 2025 ) ; cBioPortal ( Cerami et al., 2012 ; Gao et al., 2013 ) ; TTD ( Zhou et al., 2024 ) ; ClinVar ( Landrum et al., 2025 ) ; GTEx ( The GTEx Consortium, 2020 ) ; ENCODE ( The ENCODE Project Consortium, 2020 ) ; STRING ( Szklarczyk et al., 2023 ) ; Europe PMC ( Rosonovski et al., 2024 ) ; ClinicalTrials.gov and FDA record interfaces. | Disease, target, variant, or experimental context associations, variants, expression, functional and network evidence, publications, and study records with provenance. |
| Target identity and structural data | UniProt ( The UniProt Consortium, 2025 ) ; RCSB PDB ( Burley et al., 2022 ) ; SIFTS ( Velankar et al., 2013 ) ; AlphaFold DB ( Varadi et al., 2024 ) ; NAKB (nucleic-acid structures) ( Lawson et al., 2024 ) ; KinHub ( 28 ) . | Names, sequences, or database identifiers target identities, sequences, structure candidates and coordinates, chain/residue mappings, and family annotations. |
| Receptor, ligand, and pocket preparation | PDBFixer ( PDBFixer contributors, ) ; Meeko ( Santos-Martins et al., 2025 ) ; RDKit ( RDKit contributors, ) ; CCD ( Westbrook et al., 2015 ) ; fpocket ( Le Guilloux et al., 2009 ) ; P2Rank ( Krivák and Hoksza, 2018 ) . | Protein/ligand structures, component selections, and preparation parameters prepared receptors and ligand states, pocket candidates, docking grids, and input files. |
| Interaction and pharmacophore analysis | PLIP ( Schake et al., 2025 ) ; ProLIF ( Bouysset and Fiorucci, 2021 ) ; RDKit; atomic geometry analysis and co-crystal alignment/clustering. | Complexes, structural ensembles, or labeled molecules contacts, water-mediated paths, interaction fingerprints, conserved three-dimensional interaction points, and molecular features. |
| Compound sources and activity evidence | ChEMBL ( Zdrazil et al., 2024 ) ; BindingDB ( Liu et al., 2025 ) ; PubChem ( Kim et al., 2025 ) ; local-library similarity search; Google Patents retrieval by publication number. | Target/compound identifiers, reference molecules, or patent publication numbers chemical identities, measured activities with assay context, candidate rankings, or patent documents. |
| Molecule generation and fragment linking | DiffSBDD ( Schneuing et al., 2024 ) ; FlowMol3 ( Dunn and Koes, 2026 ) ; AutoFragDiff ( Ghorbani et al., 2024 ) ; explicit molecular-graph linking. | Generation settings, optional pocket context, or fragments with attachment sites three-dimensional candidates, fragment mappings, and linked-molecule proposals. |
| Source task | Records scanned | (A), nM | (B), nM |
| 003 | 2,008 | 7.9 | 2,512 |
| 021 | 195 | 9.5 | 2,300 |
| Comparison | Initial skill (S0) | Revised skill (S1) |
| Source processing | Partial source reads | Full activity file recovered; 1,523 records scanned |
| Decision evidence | Property or conformer heuristics | One matched record per molecule; corresponding values |
| Selected molecule | B (incorrect) | A (correct) |
LLM Agent Harnesses
LLM agent harnesses are the software and runtime systems that organize an agent’s tools, context, state, execution, and safeguards.
See all 375 papers