Terminal-Agent Benchmarks

Command-line interface (CLI) agents increasingly execute longer-horizon tasks, yet existing benchmarks either assume that user instructions remain fixed throughout execution or evaluate task outcomes without capturing runtime collaboration quality. In this paper, we present REALCLI, a paired benchmark that unifies the evaluation of task execution and human-agent collaboration quality on realistic CLI tasks. To comprehensively measure collaboration, REALCLI builds a five-dimensional framework, operationalized into 22 sub-dimensions and 51 interaction scenario templates. REALCLI provides two modes for paired comparison: REALCLI-EXEC supplies complete specifications upfront, whereas REALCLI-COLLAB introduces a scripted user that delivers progressive information, corrections, constraint revisions, and authorization decisions. Evaluations reveal profound capability gaps in frontier agents: the best configuration attains an average score of only 49.2%, and when evaluated by the joint collaboration score ($J_{\mathrm{collab}}$), the peak performance reaches merely 37.6%. These results show that task effectiveness diverges sharply from collaboration quality, with models consistently struggling in steerability, trust calibration, and safety boundary management. REALCLI provides a rigorous, reproducible foundation for measuring and advancing collaborative CLI agents.

Long-horizon terminal benchmarks measure whether an agent can sustain progress through extended workflows with process rewards, not only whether its final state passes a binary check. We present Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench 2.0 (LHTB 2.0), an extension of Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench that preserves its 46 original tasks while correcting task and evaluation-infrastructure defects and extending 31 tasks. LHTB 2.0 contains 77 tasks across 13 domains and eight task types. The extended tasks are produced through a systematic reconstruction-task pipeline. We start from a working scientific or engineering artifact, then use a parameterized reference implementation to generate multiple scenarios, reveal six as behavioral evidence, hold out three for evaluation, and use dense progress ladders to reward partial progress while preventing memorization of public outputs. We also extend the evaluation horizon from 90 minutes to three hours and record verifier checkpoints every 30 minutes, enabling direct measurement of sustained progress within a run. Across 1,145 scored model-task runs from 15 frontier models, GPT-6-astra leads with dense mean reward 0.69 and 37 tasks at R at least 0.95, followed by GPT-5.6-sol with dense mean reward 0.67 and 32 tasks at the same threshold. On the 30 reconstruction tasks, binary verifier scores average 0.221, whereas dense ladder scores average 0.653, showing that outcome-only evaluation discards substantial intermediate progress. LHTB 2.0 provides a broader, hardened, and process-aware testbed for studying reliable agent execution over hours.

AI agents have become capable of autonomously completing short, well-specified tasks. However, existing terminal benchmarks largely focus on simple problems that finish within minutes and are evaluated only by their final outcome. This setup overlooks intermediate progress and partial solutions, yielding sparse reward signals and an incomplete picture of agent capability. We introduce Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench, a terminal benchmark of 46 long-horizon tasks spanning nine categories, including experiment reproduction, software engineering, multimodal analysis, interactive games, and scientific computing. Each task follows a Terminal-Bench-style setup with a reference solution or simulation engine, but is further decomposed into fine-grained graded subtasks. This design enables dense intermediate rewards and partial credit, allowing evaluation to capture not only whether an agent reaches the final goal, but also how far it progresses on open-ended workflows. Tasks in Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench typically require hundreds of episodes and minutes to hours of execution, stressing long-horizon planning, long-context management, and iterative debugging rather than one-shot problem solving. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find that agents consume on average 9.9M tokens per task, with roughly 231 episodes and 85.3 minutes of execution time per run, making Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench more demanding than prior terminal-based benchmarks. Even the strongest tested model achieves 15.2% pass@1 at a partial-reward threshold of 0.95 and 10.9% at a perfect-reward threshold of 1.0, while the mean pass rate across models is 4.3% and 1.7% under the two thresholds, respectively. These results reveal headroom for improvement. We further analyze failure modes and error patterns, and release Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench to support future progress on long-horizon terminal agents.

As large language models and harness frameworks continue to advance, agents operating in terminals are increasingly capable of performing a broader range of general computer-use tasks beyond coding. However, existing benchmarks do not adequately evaluate general-purpose terminal computer-use agents (TUAs): general computer-use benchmarks primarily target graphical user interfaces (GUIs), whereas terminal-based benchmarks largely emphasize technical and programming-centric workflows historically native to the shell. We introduce TUA-Bench, a general-purpose benchmark for terminal-use agents. TUA-Bench includes 120 real-world tasks across five task families, covering routine digital activities-including document editing, email management, and live-web information seeking-as well as scientific and engineering workflows co-designed with PhD-level domain experts that require specialized software. This breadth distinguishes TUA-Bench from prior shell-focused or domain-specific benchmarks. Each task is manually designed, runs in a real terminal with a deterministic setup script, and is evaluated by an execution-based scoring protocol. We find that the strongest frontier agent, Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.8 max reasoning effort, achieves 65.8% overall performance, with substantial gaps across both tracks. By providing a broad and realistic evaluation of terminal-use capabilities, TUA-Bench aims to accelerate the transition from narrow, task-specific assistants to general-purpose agents capable of operating reliably across diverse digital environments.

Unix competence is the ability to use shell and operating-system primitives as first-class tools, not merely to write programs through a terminal. Current terminal benchmarks tend to blur this distinction: a solver fluent in Python but weak in Unix can pass a substantial fraction of Terminal-Bench 2.0, while the reverse skill profile is rarely exercised. We make the distinction operational and build a training surface for the Unix component. unix-ctf is a procedural generator of capture-the-flag tasks for shell agents. Each task hides a short token (a flag of the form flag(a3b1c9...)) inside a fresh Linux container using a single Unix feature, and the agent must recover it. Tasks are produced by an LLM-assisted synthesis pipeline that generates candidate hiding techniques, rewrites them into parameterized hide-and-find script pairs, and filters them with a bidirectional contract: the hide script must leave no plaintext trace of the flag on disk, and the find script must recover the flag in a fresh directory. Because the LLM only writes the planting and recovery steps (the container, layout, and grading harness are fixed), the pipeline lands 656 of 750 raw attempts as portable, reusable variants (87.5%). Our reproduction of Endless Terminals' full-container-generation approach lands only 17.4% under the same checks. The 656 variants canonicalize to 155 distinct techniques. Fine-tuning Qwen3-8B with LoRA using GRPO on this surface lifts solve rate from 11.6% to 43.6% on a 15-skill multi-family holdout (n=225), redistributes which InterCode-CTF tasks the model solves, and produces a +33 pp gain in Forensics while reaching 32/100 on InterCode-CTF. These results suggest that Unix competence is separable, trainable, and best evaluated directly rather than folded into programming-through-a-shell.

We introduce TerminalWorld, a scalable data engine that automatically reverse-engineers high-fidelity evaluation tasks from "in-the-wild" terminal recordings. Processing 80,870 terminal recordings, the engine yields a full benchmark of 1,530 validated tasks, spanning 18 real-world categories, ranging from short everyday operations to workflows exceeding 50 steps, and covering 1,280 unique commands. From these, we curate a Verified subset of 200 representative, manually reviewed tasks. Comprehensive benchmarking on TerminalWorld-Verified across eight frontier models and six agents reveals that current systems still struggle with authentic terminal workflows, achieving a maximum pass rate of only 62.5%. Moreover, TerminalWorld captures real-world terminal capabilities distinct from existing expert-curated benchmarks (e.g., Terminal-Bench), with only a weak correlation to their scores (Pearson r=0.20). The automated engine makes TerminalWorld authentic and scalable by construction, enabling it to evaluate agents in real-world terminal environments as developer practices evolve. Data and code are available at https://github.com/EuniAI/TerminalWorld.

Interactive agent benchmarks face a tension between scalable construction and realistic workflow evaluation. Hand-authored tasks are expensive to extend and revise, while static prompt evaluation misses failures that only appear when agents operate over persistent state. Existing interactive benchmarks have advanced agent evaluation significantly, but most initialize tasks from clean state and do not systematically test how agents handle pre-existing partial, stale, or conflicting artifacts. We present ClawForge, a generator-backed benchmark framework for executable command-line workflows under state conflict. The framework compiles scenario templates, grounded slots, initialized state, reference trajectories, and validators into reproducible task specifications, and evaluates agents step by step over persistent workflow surfaces using normalized end state and observable side effects rather than exact trajectory matching. We instantiate this framework as the ClawForge-Bench (17 scenarios, 6 ability categories). Results across seven frontier models show that the best model reaches only 45.3% strict accuracy, wrong-state replacement remains below 17% for all models, and the widest model separation (17% to 90%) is driven by whether agents inspect existing state before acting. Partial-credit and step-efficiency analyses further reveal that many failures are near-miss closures rather than early breakdowns, and that models exhibit qualitatively different failure styles under state conflict.

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.

Command line interface (CLI) agents are emerging as a practical paradigm for agent-computer interaction over evolving filesystems, executable command line programs, and online execution feedback. Recent work has used reinforcement learning (RL) to learn these interaction abilities from verifiable task feedback, yet few methods exploit the native structured attributes of CLI actions as learning signals. Beyond this underused action structure, CLI learning also couples two bottlenecks for coding agents. First, the agent must identify task-relevant evidence in a large codebase from partial observations. Second, sparse terminal rewards must be assigned to the actions that shape a long multi-turn trajectory. We study these bottlenecks through shell-driven information extraction and file editing tasks. For selective observation, we introduce $σ$-Reveal, an inference-time mechanism that selects token-budgeted context for the same CLI. For credit assignment, we propose Action Advantage Assignment ($\mathrm{A}^3$), a native agentic RL method that preserves the algorithmic complexity of standard agentic RL. $\mathrm{A}^3$ constructs turn-level advantages from episode-level relative feedback, abstract syntax tree (AST) based action sub-chain residuals, and tree-level trajectory margins. To further evaluate this problem setting, we construct ShellOps, a verifiable dataset suite covering CLI tasks in repository environments.

Terminal-agent benchmarks have become a primary signal for measuring the coding and system-administration capabilities of large language models. As the market for evaluation environments grows, so does the pressure to ship tasks quickly, often without thorough adversarial review of the verification logic. This paper is a guideline for writing good benchmark tasks, drawn from over a year of contributing to and reviewing tasks for Terminal Bench. Most people write benchmark tasks the way they write prompts. They shouldn't. A prompt is designed to help the agent succeed; a benchmark is designed to find out if it can. We argue that good tasks are adversarial, difficult, and legible, and that a large class of common failure modes -- AI-generated instructions, over-prescriptive specifications, clerical difficulty, oracle solutions that assume hidden knowledge, tests that validate the wrong things, and reward-hackable environments -- are predictable consequences of treating task authoring as prompt authoring. We catalog these failure modes, argue that real difficulty is conceptual rather than environmental, and discuss recent empirical evidence that over 15% of tasks in popular terminal-agent benchmarks are reward-hackable. We hope this serves as a useful reference for benchmark maintainers, task contributors, and researchers using benchmark scores as evidence.