Can LLM Agents Be Forward-Deployed Engineers? Requirement Discovery and Delivery for Enterprise Text-to-SQL

Post-training is becoming a service (PTaaS): a customer hands an operator data and a goal, and a forward-deployed engineer (FDE) returns a fine-tuned, evaluated, and deployed model under a budget, a human-approval gate, and reproducibility requirements. Seating an LLM agent in the FDE seat raises a question existing benchmarks cannot answer: not whether an agent can raise a metric, but whether it can be trusted to deliver. We answer it on a governed delivery plane, where an agent drives ten stages and an oracle scores each stage from platform-recorded facts. The central silent failure is the run that trains but does not learn (TBDL): loss falls, every signal stays green, and the delivered model is no better than the base. An operator-run acceptance gate catches every such run before payment, and a detector calibrated on known-corrupted runs flags severe corruption mid-run. We ran four frontier agents (Claude Opus 5, GPT-5.6-luna, Gemini 3.7 Flash, DeepSeek V4-Pro) end to end on metered L40S, A100, and H200 GPUs across 8B to 70B open bases, certifying every scenario before scoring. We also ran a human FDE arm under the same oracle and compare every agent against it.

AI agents have become surprisingly proficient at software engineering over the past year, largely due to improvements in reasoning capabilities. This raises a deeper question: can these systems extend their capabilities to automate AI research itself? In this paper, we explore post-training, the critical phase that turns base LLMs into useful assistants. We introduce PostTrainBench to benchmark how well LLM agents can perform post-training autonomously under bounded compute constraints (10 hours on one H100 GPU). We ask frontier agents (e.g., Claude Code with Opus 4.6) to optimize the performance of a base LLM on a particular benchmark (e.g., Qwen3-4B on AIME). Importantly, we do not provide any predefined strategies to the agents and instead give them full autonomy to find necessary information on the web, run experiments, and curate data. We find that frontier agents make substantial progress but generally lag behind instruction-tuned LLMs from leading providers: 23.2% for the best agent vs. 51.1% for official instruction-tuned models. However, agents can exceed instruction-tuned models in targeted scenarios: GPT-5.1 Codex Max achieves 89% on BFCL with Gemma-3-4B vs. 67% for the official model. We also observe several failure modes worth flagging. Agents sometimes engage in reward hacking: training on the test set, downloading existing instruction-tuned checkpoints instead of training their own, and using API keys they find to generate synthetic data without authorization. These behaviors are concerning and highlight the importance of careful sandboxing as these systems become more capable. Overall, we hope PostTrainBench will be useful for tracking progress in AI R&D automation and for studying the risks that come with it. Website and code are available at https://posttrainbench.com/.

As LLM coding agents increasingly perform end-to-end engineering work, we lack empirical characterization of how they behave on systems-level requirements: schema design, async orchestration, configuration correctness, and retrieval-filtering trade-offs. We present a case study of one such agent implementing a multi-component data system against a detailed pre-existing specification. Storage technologies, schema, entity-resolution algorithm, and retrieval-filtering strategy were fixed in advance; the agent autonomy was in the implementation, in diagnosing and fixing defects it introduced, and in interaction-design choices left open. Over a single session, we catalog five such defects, categorized by constraint violated and detection method. We further evaluate, on the public HotpotQA benchmark, the one retrieval trade-off specified in that architecture: restricting candidates to a graph-identified entity set before ranking versus unfiltered search. We substitute the benchmark gold evidence labels for entity identification, since we lacked LLM access to run that stage, and report standard recall rather than the benchmark own accuracy metrics. Across retrieval budgets from 1 to 10 and 100 questions against a pooled corpus of 2994 paragraphs, filtered recall reaches its ceiling by a budget of 3, expected once candidates are restricted to the gold paragraphs themselves, while unfiltered search recovers all required evidence only 69 percent of the time even at a budget of 10, a gap that holds at every budget tested, with sign test p less than 0.0001. We close with a discussion of where the agent autonomy succeeded versus required correction, including one instance where a claimed performance fix was never re-measured on the regression that motivated it.