Spreadsheet Automation

A small Office edit creates two obligations: propagate every required update and leave protected state untouched. Updating too little leaves dependencies inconsistent; updating too much changes content the user did not authorize. We introduce OfficeEditBench, a 170-task benchmark for change-scoped maintenance of spreadsheets, presentations, and documents. Task contracts specify required updates, protected state, native structures, and applicable interaction requirements. Across 510 archived task-system outcomes from WorkBuddy, Doubao, and Codex, we distinguish file delivery, target completion, and verifier-defined acceptance. Hard package-valid delivery ranges from 92% to 100%, yet no selected output satisfies the complete contract. Case analysis highlights why local correctness is insufficient: an updated value can lose its generating formula, a revised rule can fail to reach related conclusions, and a new deadline can omit a retained prerequisite. These mechanisms connect artifact-level checks to the continued maintainability of Office files. We analyze maintenance failures while distinguishing frozen automatic verdicts from human acceptability. OfficeEditBench provides a testbed for completing required changes while preserving the logic and scope of existing work.

We introduce the workbook time machine, a pipeline that automatically creates benchmarks evaluating the ability of language models to create derived objects in spreadsheets (formulas, charts, pivot tables, and conditional formatting). Applied to public workbook corpora, it produces wtmcorpus--a collection of (input workbook, output workbook, query) triples spanning four artifact types and varying complexity. From this corpus we curate wtmbench, a 150-task evaluation benchmark with queries at three levels of specificity. We evaluate existing spreadsheet manipulation agents and baselines on wtmbench across artifact types, step complexity, and instruction granularity. Our evaluations show that query specificity, agent orchestration, and interface API used to control spreadsheets play a big role in LLM performance on Excel tasks.

Plan Modes have become standard features in agentic programming tools, allowing users to gain transparency and control by working with the agent to develop a plan before task execution. However, it remains unclear whether the benefits of this feature translate to end-user programming environments such as spreadsheets. Since spreadsheet programmers tend to work iteratively and care less about technical correctness, upfront planning may not fit into their workflows as easily. In this paper, we build a prototype of a Plan Mode for spreadsheet programming and evaluate it against a non-planning baseline through a within-subjects user study (N=24). We found that despite similar task outcomes with both tools, using Plan Mode led to a reduction in refinement and a better perception of the tool across dimensions of creativity support and human-machine collaboration. We discuss the implications of these results for the future design of Plan Modes, and for the broader role of human-AI planning in end-user programming.

Spreadsheets are widely used for business analysis, financial modeling, reporting, and decision-making. However, most existing spreadsheet benchmarks evaluate isolated operations such as single-formula generation or local cell edits, and therefore fail to capture end-to-end workflows in realistic business settings. We introduce \textsc{SpreadsheetBench 2}, a workflow-level benchmark for spreadsheet agents that covers three task categories: generation, debugging, and visualization. The benchmark is constructed from authentic business data, including financial reports and corporate filings, and is annotated and validated by domain experts. The benchmark contains 321 tasks; each instance averages 11.8 worksheets and requires 593.5 cell modifications, reflecting large multi-sheet workbooks with cross-sheet dependencies. We evaluate eight frontier large language models under a unified multi-turn agent scaffold, and additionally include several LLM-based spreadsheet products as complementary baselines. Results show that current systems remain far from reliable on real-world workflows: the best model achieves 34.89% overall task accuracy, and debugging accuracy is as low as 12.00%. Trajectory analysis and a failure taxonomy further indicate that insufficient spreadsheet inspection and incorrect target-cell selection are the dominant bottlenecks. Together, these findings position \textsc{SpreadsheetBench 2} as a challenging testbed for advancing reliable spreadsheet automation. Project page: https://spreadsheetbench.github.io/

Predictive code completion greatly accelerates how quickly developers work. In spreadsheets, despite being much more common, such auto-completion features are virtually non-existent. To address this gap, we introduce a benchmark for systems that observe a sequence of user actions in a spreadsheet and predict future actions. Two challenges are (1) the absence of edit histories in public spreadsheet corpora and (2) the complex space of spreadsheet actions (spatial, temporal, composite). To address (1), we manually curate 52 sequences of 12K actions that recreate spreadsheets from public corpora, seeded by parametrized heuristics and LLM refinement. To address (2), we propose an online evaluation that expects a prediction after each user action, accepts or rejects that prediction, updates the future actions upon acceptance, and repeats this until the target spreadsheet is obtained. We use multiple baseline predictors (including zero-shot LLMs, fine-tuned SLMs, and classical models) and analyze different properties that our benchmark teaches us, including but not limited to: properties of saved actions and false positives, efficiency, effect of user profiles, effect of triggers, and effect of context.

Spreadsheets and tables are widely used representations for structured data analysis, but effective analysis still requires substantial manual effort and domain expertise. Recent large language model (LLM) agents can automate parts of this process, but they often provide limited transparency into intermediate decisions, rely on implicit assumptions, struggle with multi-table comparison, and repeat similar workflows without adapting to a user's preferences. This paper presents TabClaw, an open-source interactive AI agent for spreadsheet manipulation and table reasoning. Users upload CSV or Excel files and issue natural-language requests; TabClaw clarifies ambiguous intent, exposes an editable execution plan, streams a ReAct-style tool-using analysis loop, dispatches specialist agents for parallel multi-table reasoning, and synthesizes findings with explicit consensus and uncertainty markers. Beyond one-off analysis, TabClaw records completed workflows, extracts persistent user memory, distills reusable skills from repeated tool-use patterns, supports package-style skill import, and upgrades skills from negative feedback. Experiments on spreadsheet manipulation and table reasoning benchmarks show that TabClaw improves executable task completion and reasoning performance while preserving an inspectable user workflow. This paper shows how TabClaw turns spreadsheets and tables into inspectable analytical workflows while gradually personalizing itself to recurring data-analysis tasks. Our code is available.

We present BlueFin, a benchmark that tasks large language model (LLM) agents with synthesis, manipulation, and comprehension tasks over spreadsheet workbooks in the professional finance domain. Though estimates of the global population of paying users of spreadsheet software range in the hundreds of millions -- an order of magnitude more than the estimated global population of professional developers -- comparatively fewer resources have been devoted to exploring and expanding LLM capabilities in the spreadsheet domain, with fewer still dedicated to mirroring real occupational tasks encountered by those in professional finance roles. In response, we curate a set of 131 challenging, complex tasks with real-world relevance in the domain, containing 3,225 granular rubric criteria; notably, our rubric criteria and LM judge evaluations are validated by a team of expert human annotators, resulting in high-quality, granular evaluations of complex tasks that are difficult to verify programmatically but can be reliably evaluated by an LM judge agent. Our judge achieves parity with expert consensus ($α=0.826$) with a macro-F1 score of 0.839. Frontier LLMs demonstrate poor performance on the challenging benchmark, with the strongest LLMs achieving less than 50% average scores across tasks -- models exhibit particular weaknesses in dynamic correctness. Our contributions include a dataset of examples across three categories of spreadsheet tasks, an open source harness and agentic evaluation framework, and a characterization of existing frontier models' performance on our benchmark.

LLM agents are increasingly expected to carry out end-to-end workflows, producing complete artifacts from high-level user instructions. To meet enterprise needs, frontier AI labs have developed agents that can construct entire spreadsheets from scratch. This is especially relevant in finance, where core workflows such as financial modeling, forecasting, and scenario analysis are commonly conducted through spreadsheets. Yet, existing spreadsheet benchmarks do not measure this advanced capability, focusing instead on question-answering or single-formula edits. To address this gap, we provide one of the first evaluations of agents on end-to-end spreadsheet tasks, focusing on economically critical financial workflows such as modeling and scenario analysis. Since deliverables therein are routinely reviewed and revised by multiple stakeholders, judging their quality necessarily involves high-level criteria such as readability or ease of modification. To reflect the multidimensional nature of solution quality, we develop an evaluation taxonomy comprising three dimensions: Accuracy, Formula, and Format, each comprising fine-grained criteria that reflect professional standards. The Claude family leads the benchmark and produces the most professional-looking outputs in our qualitative review, but even the strongest agents frequently fall short of professional finance standards and degrade sharply as the difficulty increases beyond a few chained calculations. This suggests that current agents are not yet able to reliably produce professional-quality spreadsheets at the level of complexity real-world workflows demand.

Spreadsheet systems (e.g., Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets) play a central role in modern data-centric workflows. As AI agents grow increasingly capable of automating complex tasks, such as controlling computers and generating presentations, building an AI-driven spreadsheet agent has emerged as a promising research direction. Most existing spreadsheet agents rely on specialized prompting over general-purpose LLMs; while this design has potentials on simple spreadsheet operations, it struggles to manage the complex, multi-step workflows typical of real-world applications. We introduce Spreadsheet-RL, a reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning framework designed to train specialized spreadsheet agents within a realistic Microsoft Excel environment. Spreadsheet-RL features an automated pipeline for scalable collection of paired start-goal spreadsheets from online forums, as well as domain-specific evaluation tasks in areas such as finance and supply chain management, which we compile into the new Domain-Spreadsheet benchmark dataset. It also includes a Spreadsheet Gym environment designed for multi-turn RL: Spreadsheet Gym exposes extensive Excel functionality through a Python sandbox, along with a refined harness that incorporates a comprehensive tool set and carefully designed tool-routing rules for spreadsheet tasks. Through comprehensive experiments, we show that Spreadsheet-RL substantially enhances AI agent's performance on both general and domain-specific spreadsheet tasks: it improves Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507's Pass@1 on SpreadsheetBench from 12.0% to 23.4%, and raises Pass@1 from 8.4% to 17.2% on our curated Domain-Spreadsheet dataset. These results highlight Spreadsheet-RL's strong potential for generalization and real-world adoption in spreadsheet automation, and broadly, its promise for advancing LLM-based interactions with data interfaces in everyday work.

This paper investigates how GPT-based tools can assist in building reusable analytical spreadsheet models. After a screening, we evaluate five GPT extensions and select Excel AI by pulsrai.com for detailed testing. Through structured experiments on simple problem statements, we assess Excel AI's performance against the ERFR criteria (each input in a cell; cell formulas; no hardwired numbers; labels; accurate). Results show that while Excel AI can produce well-structured models, it is inconsistent and often non-reproducible. We identify two central challenges - "the problem of confidence" and "the problem of workflow" - which highlight the need for skilled users to verify and adapt GPT-generated spreadsheets. Though GPTs show promise for generating draft models that may reduce development time or lower skill requirements, current tools remain unreliable for professional use. We conclude with recommendations for future research into prompt engineering, reproducibility, and larger-scale modeling tasks.

Advances in AI agent capabilities have outpaced users' ability to meaningfully oversee their execution. AI agents can perform sophisticated, multi-step knowledge work autonomously from start to finish, yet this process remains effectively inaccessible during execution, often buried within large volumes of intermediate reasoning and outputs: by the time users receive the output, all underlying decisions have already been made without their involvement. This lack of transparency leaves users unable to examine the agent's assumptions, identify errors before they propagate, or redirect execution when it deviates from their intent. The stakes are particularly high in spreadsheet environments, where process and artifact are inseparable. Each decision the agent makes is recorded directly in cells that belong to and reflect on the user. We introduce Pista, a spreadsheet AI agent that decomposes execution into auditable, controllable actions, providing users with visibility into the agent's decision-making process and the capacity to intervene at each step. A formative study (N = 8) and a within-subjects summative evaluation (N = 16) comparing Pista to a baseline agent demonstrated that active participation in execution influenced not only task outcomes but also users' comprehension of the task, their perception of the agent, and their sense of role within the workflow. Users identified their own intent reflected in the agent's actions, detected errors that post-hoc review would have failed to surface, and reported a sense of co-ownership over the resulting output. These findings indicate that meaningful human oversight of AI agents in knowledge work requires not improved post-hoc review mechanisms, but active participation in decisions as they are made.

We consider the task of end-to-end spreadsheet generation, where language models produce spreadsheet artifacts to satisfy users' explicit and implicit constraints, specified in natural language. We introduce SpreadsheetArena, a platform for evaluating models' performance on the task via blind pairwise preference votes of LLM-generated spreadsheet workbooks. As with other complex, open-ended tasks, relevant evaluation criteria can vary greatly across use cases, often in ways that are difficult to formalize. Compared to general dialogue or text generation settings, spreadsheet generation presents unique challenges and opportunities: the task output structure is well-defined and multi-dimensional, and there are often complex interactivity and layout considerations. We observe that stylistic, structural, and functional features of preferred spreadsheets vary meaningfully across prompts. Expert evaluations of spreadsheets for finance prompts suggest that even highly ranked models do not reliably produce spreadsheets aligned with domain-specific best practices. We host a live arena and release a dataset of prompts, generated spreadsheets, and preference votes, which we hope will facilitate further study of tasks operating over spreadsheets as a challenging and interesting class of complex, open-ended tasks for LLMs.

Spreadsheet agents are converging on elaborate multi-agent designs, yet it is unclear how much of their performance comes from the agents rather than from the action interface they share. We answer this with SheetMind, a Manager-Action-Reflection framework, in a controlled study over all 221 tasks of the SheetCopilot Benchmark: five architectural variants, four backbones, exact McNemar tests on paired outcomes, and a checker reproducing the official chart and pivot comparisons. Replacing the high-level action API with primitive cell operations costs 47.1 points (p < 0.0001) and leaves the agent below a do-nothing baseline, whereas both extra agents together are worth 3.2 points: the Reflection Agent adds +4.5 (p = 0.013), the Manager +1.4 (p = 0.68). Decomposition instead changes how the system fails, cutting silently wrong outputs from 33% to 25% of tasks (p = 0.010). Capability saturates: GPT-5 and the five-times-cheaper GPT-5-mini are not significantly different (61.1% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.15), while GPT-3.5 loses 16.3 points and fails differently. A reflector must judge the step it just took, not the subtask. SheetMind reaches 61.1% Pass@1 with GPT-5 on the full SCB-221, against a do-nothing baseline of 9.0%. Accuracy comes from the operations an agent can name; the agents decide how it fails.