Automated Agent Evaluation

Agent evaluation requires assessing complex multi-step behaviors involving tool use and intermediate reasoning, making it costly and expertise-intensive. A natural question arises: can frontier coding assistants reliably automate this evaluation process? Our study shows that simply prompting coding assistants is insufficient for this task. Without domain-specific evaluation knowledge, frontier coding assistants achieve only a 30% execution success rate and produce over-engineered evaluations averaging 12+ metrics per agent, indicating that strong coding ability does not automatically translate to reliable agent evaluation. We introduce EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates the end-to-end agent evaluation pipeline. EvalAgent encodes evaluation domain expertise as evaluation skills (procedural instructions, reusable code and templates, and dynamically retrieved API documentation) that compose into a trace-based pipeline producing complete evaluation artifacts including metrics, executable code, and reports. To systematically assess generated evaluations, we introduce a meta-evaluation framework alongside AgentEvalBench, a benchmark comprising 20 agents, each paired with evaluation requirements and test scenarios. We further propose the Eval@1 metric to measure whether generated evaluation code both executes and yields meaningful results on the first run. Our experiments show that EvalAgent produces focused evaluations, improving Eval@1 from 17.5% to 65%, and achieving 79.5% human expert preference over baseline approaches. Further ablation studies show that evaluation skills are critical for handling complex evaluation: removing them causes Eval@1 to drop significantly from 65% to 30%.

Large language and vision-language models increasingly power agents that act on a user's behalf through command-line interface (CLI) harnesses. However, most agent benchmarks still rely on synthetic sandboxes, short-horizon tasks, mock-service APIs, and final-answer checks, leaving open whether agents can complete realistic long-horizon work in the runtimes where they are deployed. This work presents WildClawBench, a native-runtime benchmark of 60 human-authored, bilingual, multimodal tasks spanning six thematic categories. Each task averages roughly 8 minutes of wall-clock time and over 20 tool calls, and runs inside a reproducible Docker container hosting an actual CLI agent harness (OpenClaw, Claude Code, Codex, or Hermes Agent) with access to real tools rather than mock services. Grading is hybrid, combining deterministic rule-based checks, environment-state auditing of side effects, and an LLM/VLM judge for semantic verification. Across 19 frontier models, the best, Claude Opus 4.7, reaches only 62.2% overall under OpenClaw, while every other model stays below 60%, and switching harness alone shifts a single model by up to 18 points. These results show that long-horizon, native-runtime agent evaluation remains a far-from-resolved task for current frontier models. We release the tasks, code, and containerized tooling to support reproducible evaluation.

Tool-calling agents are evaluated on tool selection, parameter accuracy, and scope recognition, yet LLM trajectory assessments remain inherently post-hoc. Disconnected from the active execution loop, such assessments identify errors that are usually addressed through prompt-tuning or retraining, and fundamentally cannot course-correct the agent in real time. To close this gap, we move evaluation into the execution loop at inference time: a specialized reviewer agent evaluates provisional tool calls prior to execution, shifting the paradigm from post-hoc recovery to proactive evaluation and error mitigation. In practice, this architecture establishes a clear separation of concerns between the primary execution agent and a secondary review agent. As with any multi-agent system, the reviewer can introduce new errors while correcting others, yet no prior work to our knowledge has systematically measured this tradeoff. To quantify this tradeoff, we introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics: helpfulness measures the percentage of base agent errors that feedback corrects; harmfulness measures the percentage of correct responses that feedback degrades. These metrics directly inform reviewer design by revealing whether a given model or prompt provides net positive value. We evaluate our approach on BFCL (single-turn) and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks. Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o. Automated prompt optimization via GEPA provides an additional +1.5-2.8%. Together, these results demonstrate a core advantage of separating execution and review: the reviewer can be systematically improved through model selection and prompt optimization, without retraining the base agent.

Existing AI benchmarks for software automation rarely combine cross-application coordination, autonomous API discovery, and policy adherence. Real business workflows demand all three: a single task may span a CRM, inbox, calendar, and messaging platform - requiring the agent to find the right endpoints, follow a policy document, and write correct data to each system. To address this gap, we introduce AutomationBench, a benchmark for evaluating AI agents on cross-application workflow orchestration via REST APIs. Drawing on real workflow patterns from Zapier's platform, tasks span Sales, Marketing, Operations, Support, Finance, and HR domains. Agents must discover relevant endpoints themselves, follow layered business rules, and navigate environments with irrelevant and sometimes misleading records. Grading is programmatic and end-state only: whether the correct data ended up in the right systems. Even the best frontier models currently score below 10%. AutomationBench provides a challenging, realistic measure of where current models stand relative to the agentic capabilities businesses actually need.

The rapid deployment of AI agents in commercial settings has outpaced the development of evaluation methodologies that reflect production realities. Existing benchmarks measure agent capabilities through retrospectively curated tasks with well-specified requirements and deterministic metrics -- conditions that diverge fundamentally from production environments where requirements contain implicit constraints, inputs are heterogeneous multi-modal documents with information fragmented across sources, tasks demand undeclared domain expertise, outputs are long-horizon professional deliverables, and success is judged by domain experts whose standards evolve over time. We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business, spanning six O*NET (Occupational Information Network) domains. Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products -- Claude Code, Codex, etc. -- as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation. Our evaluation framework covers multiple paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reference-driven metrics, formal verification, rubric-based assessment, automated UI testing, etc.), with individual domains composing multiple paradigms. Beyond the benchmark itself, we contribute a requirement-to-benchmark construction framework -- a systematic methodology that transforms authentic production requirements into executable evaluation tasks in minimal time. This framework standardizes the entire pipeline from requirement to evaluation, providing a reproducible, modular process that any organization can adopt to construct production-grounded benchmarks for their own domains.

LLM agents now perform strongly in software engineering, deep research, GUI automation, and various other applications, while recent agent scaffolds and models are increasingly integrating these capabilities into unified systems. Yet, most evaluations still test these capabilities in isolation, which leaves a gap for more diverse use cases that require agents to combine different capabilities. We introduce CocoaBench, a benchmark for unified digital agents built from human-designed, long-horizon tasks that require flexible composition of vision, search, and coding. Tasks are specified only by an instruction and an automatic evaluation function over the final output, enabling reliable and scalable evaluation across diverse agent infrastructures. We also present CocoaAgent, a lightweight shared scaffold for controlled comparison across model backbones. Experiments show that current agents remain far from reliable on CocoaBench, with the best evaluated system achieving only 45.1% success rate. Our analysis further points to substantial room for improvement in reasoning and planning, tool use and execution, and visual grounding.

Agent harnesses -- the stateful programs that wrap a language model and decide what it sees at each step -- are now known to change end-to-end performance on a fixed model by as much as six times. That raises a question asked less often than it should be: how much of an agent's competence does the harness itself already carry, and how much genuinely still needs the LLM? We externalize a planning harness for noisy Collaborative Battleship into four progressively richer layers -- posterior belief tracking, declarative planning, symbolic reflec tion, and an LLM-backed revision gate -- under a common runtime, taking win rate as the primary metric and F1 as secondary, and pre-specifying heavy lifting as the single largest positive marginal to the primary metric. Across 54 games, declarative pla nning carries the heavy lifting ($+24.1$pp win rate over a belief-only harness, zero LLM calls); symbolic reflection is mechanistically real but calibration-sensitive, with signed board-level effects up to $\pm0.140$ F1 that cancel on aggregate; and LLM-backed revision ac tivates on only $4.3\%$ of turns with a bounded, non-monotonic effect. The contribution is methodological: once harness layers are made externally measurable, the LLM's role can be quantified as residual rather than assumed central.

Evaluating AI agents on comprehensive benchmarks is expensive because each evaluation requires interactive rollouts with tool use and multi-step reasoning. We study whether small task subsets can preserve agent rankings at substantially lower cost. Unlike static language model benchmarks, agent evaluation is subject to scaffold-driven distribution shift, since performance depends on the framework wrapping the underlying model. Across eight benchmarks, 33 agent scaffolds, and 70+ model configurations, we find that absolute score prediction degrades under this shift, while rank-order prediction remains stable. Exploiting this asymmetry, we propose a simple optimization-free protocol: evaluate new agents only on tasks with intermediate historical pass rates (30-70%). This mid-range difficulty filter, motivated by Item Response Theory, reduces the number of evaluation tasks by 44-70% while maintaining high rank fidelity under scaffold and temporal shifts. It provides more reliable rankings than random sampling, which exhibits high variance across seeds, and outperforms greedy task selection under distribution shift. These results suggest that reliable leaderboard ranking does not require full-benchmark evaluation.

Agent applications are increasingly adopted to automate workflows across diverse tasks. However, due to the heterogeneous domains they operate in, it is challenging to create a scalable evaluation framework. Prior works each employ their own methods to determine task success, such as database lookups, regex match, etc., adding complexity to the development of a unified agent evaluation approach. Moreover, they do not systematically account for the user's role nor expertise in the interaction, providing incomplete insights into the agent's performance. We argue that effective agent evaluation goes beyond correctness alone, incorporating conversation quality, efficiency and systematic diagnosis of agent errors. To address this, we introduce the TED framework (Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose). (1) Talk: We leverage reusable, generic expert and non-expert user persona templates for user-agent interaction. (2) Evaluate: We adapt existing datasets by representing subgoals-such as tool signatures, and responses-as natural language grading notes, evaluated automatically with LLM-as-a-judge. We propose new metrics that capture both turn efficiency and intermediate progress of the agent complementing the user-aware setup. (3) Diagnose: We introduce an automated error analysis tool that analyzes the inconsistencies of the judge and agents, uncovering common errors, and providing actionable feedback for agent improvement. We show that our TED framework reveals new insights regarding agent performance across models and user expertise levels. We also demonstrate potential gains in agent performance with peaks of 8-10% on our proposed metrics after incorporating the identified error remedies into the agent's design.

Across many domains (e.g., IoT, observability, telecommunications, cybersecurity), there is an emerging adoption of conversational data analysis agents that enable users to "talk to your data" to extract insights. Such data analysis agents operate on timeseries data models; e.g., measurements from sensors or events monitoring user clicks and actions in product analytics. We evaluate 6 popular data analysis agents (both open-source and proprietary) on domain-specific data and query types, and find that they fail on stateful and incident-specific queries. We observe two key expressivity gaps in existing evals: domain-customized datasets and domain-specific query types. To enable practitioners in such domains to generate customized and expressive evals for such timeseries data agents, we present AgentFuel. AgentFuel helps domain experts quickly create customized evals to perform end-to-end functional tests. We show that AgentFuel's benchmarks expose key directions for improvement in existing data agent frameworks. We also present anecdotal evidence that using AgentFuel can improve agent performance (e.g., with GEPA). AgentFuel benchmarks are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/RockfishData/TimeSeriesAgentEvals.

General-purpose agents perform tasks in unfamiliar environments without domain-specific manual customization. Yet no study has systematically measured how agent architecture shapes performance across heterogeneous protocols and diverse unfamiliar environments. This is the first systematic study, comparing tool-calling, MCP, code-generation, and CLI agents on the same benchmarks with the same models. Two gaps blocked such a study: existing harnesses require per-benchmark wiring or fixed protocol classes (web for BrowserGym, CLI for Harbor), and benchmarks themselves expect human-authored prompts, context, and integration glue. To enable this study, we contribute (1) a unifying protocol that bridges existing benchmark and agent protocols; (2) an evaluation harness that surfaces any benchmark to any general-purpose agent and backbone model; and (3) the first Open General Agent Leaderboard of agent configurations, a full factorial over 5 agent architectures x 5 backbone LLMs (three closed-source, two open-weight) x 6 benchmarks spanning software engineering, customer service, deep research, and personal assistance. We find that (i) general agents adapt to every tested domain without per-domain customization; (ii) agent architecture choice swings results by up to 12pp within a single model, yet backbone model choice dominates overall performance; (iii) on 4 of 6 tested benchmarks, top general agents are indistinguishable from the leading heavily-customized domain-specific agents; (iv) open-weight models tested exhibit "generality sinks" absent from frontier closed-source models: they consistently collapse on specific agent architectures or benchmarks; (v) a behavioral failure analysis reveals architecture-distinctive error signatures that aggregate scoring cannot discriminate. Code, harness, leaderboard, and traces are at https://www.exgentic.ai.

We introduce ResearchGym, a benchmark and execution environment for evaluating AI agents on end-to-end research. To instantiate this, we repurpose five oral and spotlight papers from ICML, ICLR, and ACL. From each paper's repository, we preserve the datasets, evaluation harness, and baseline implementations but withhold the paper's proposed method. This results in five containerized task environments comprising 39 sub-tasks in total. Within each environment, agents must propose novel hypotheses, run experiments, and attempt to surpass strong human baselines on the paper's metrics. In a controlled evaluation of an agent powered by GPT-5, we observe a sharp capability--reliability gap. The agent improves over the provided baselines from the repository in just 1 of 15 evaluations (6.7%) by 11.5%, and completes only 26.5% of sub-tasks on average. We identify recurring long-horizon failure modes, including impatience, poor time and resource management, overconfidence in weak hypotheses, difficulty coordinating parallel experiments, and hard limits from context length. Yet in a single run, the agent surpasses the solution of an ICML 2025 Spotlight task, indicating that frontier agents can occasionally reach state-of-the-art performance, but do so unreliably. We additionally evaluate proprietary agent scaffolds including Claude Code (Opus-4.5) and Codex (GPT-5.2) which display a similar gap. ResearchGym provides infrastructure for systematic evaluation and analysis of autonomous agents on closed-loop research.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to HealthBench and DR.BENCH, covering medical and 10-domain professional evaluation settings. Code and data are available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.