Harness-Bench: Measuring Harness Effects across Models in Realistic Agent Workflows

Chao-Hsuan Liu; Guangxiang Zhao; Lin Sun; Tong Yang; Wenhan Yu; Xiangzheng Zhang; Xinyu Tan; Yaoming Li; Yilun Yao; Yuxuan Tian

arxiv: 2605.27922 · v1 · pith:PTDQKWDYnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · 💻 cs.AI

Harness-Bench: Measuring Harness Effects across Models in Realistic Agent Workflows

Yilun Yao , Xinyu Tan , Chao-Hsuan Liu , Yaoming Li , Zhengyang Wang , Wenhan Yu , Zhewen Tan , Yuxuan Tian

show 4 more authors

Guangxiang Zhao Lin Sun Xiangzheng Zhang Tong Yang

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 12:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords Harness-BenchLLM agentsagent workflowsharness effectsexecution variationbenchmark evaluationagent harness

0 comments

The pith

Agent capability must be evaluated at the model-harness configuration level rather than by base model alone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Existing benchmarks for LLM agents either ignore the execution harness or hold it fixed, making it hard to see how the system layer influences outcomes. Harness-Bench creates 106 realistic, sandboxed tasks and runs them across multiple models and harness configurations under controlled conditions. The results show substantial differences in completion rates, process quality, and failure modes depending on the specific model-harness pairing. A sympathetic reader would care because this implies that claims about model superiority in agent tasks are incomplete without specifying the harness. The benchmark records traces and artifacts to allow deeper analysis of execution alignment.

Core claim

Harness-Bench measures harness effects by evaluating representative configurations across model backends on shared tasks while preserving native execution behavior. Across 5,194 trajectories, it finds substantial variation in completion, efficiency, and failure behavior, supporting the claim that agent capability depends on the model-harness pair.

What carries the argument

The harness, the system layer managing context, tools, state, constraints, permissions, tracing, and recovery in agent workflows.

If this is right

Agent performance reports should specify the full model-harness configuration.
Comparisons between models require testing under multiple harness setups to be valid.
Execution traces from the benchmark enable diagnosis of alignment failures between reasoning and tool feedback.
Future agent systems can use the benchmark to improve reliability by addressing recurring failure patterns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Current public leaderboards for agents may overstate or understate model differences due to harness variation.
Developers might need to optimize harnesses specifically for certain models to achieve best results.
Standardizing harness interfaces could reduce the observed configuration-dependent effects.

Load-bearing premise

The 106 tasks, drawn from practical patterns and reviewed for realism, adequately represent the range of real-world agent workflows.

What would settle it

A replication study using a larger or differently constructed set of tasks that finds no substantial performance variation across harness configurations for the same models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27922 by Chao-Hsuan Liu, Guangxiang Zhao, Lin Sun, Tong Yang, Wenhan Yu, Xiangzheng Zhang, Xinyu Tan, Yaoming Li, Yilun Yao, Yuxuan Tian, Zhengyang Wang, Zhewen Tan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Task suite overview. Harness-Bench contains 106 sandboxed offline tasks across eight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Harness dependence and Codex reference. Left: mean score and cross-harness variance for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Category-level harness dependence. Variance is computed across configurable-harness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

LLM agents are increasingly deployed as executable systems that use tools, modify workspaces, and produce concrete artifacts. In such workflows, performance depends not only on the base model, but also on the harness: the system layer that manages context, tools, state, constraints, permissions, tracing, and recovery. However, existing benchmarks typically abstract away execution, compare complete agent systems, or hold the harness fixed, making execution-layer variation difficult to study. We introduce Harness-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating configuration-level harness effects in realistic agent workflows. Harness-Bench evaluates representative harness configurations across multiple model backends under shared task environments, budgets, and evaluation protocols, while preserving each harness's native execution behavior. The benchmark contains 106 sandboxed offline tasks constructed from practical agent-use patterns and manually reviewed for realism, solvability, oracle-checkability, and integrity. Each run records final artifacts, execution traces, usage statistics, and validator outputs, enabling analysis beyond final completion. Across 5,194 execution trajectories, we observe substantial variation in completion, process quality, efficiency, and failure behavior across model-harness pairings. These results suggest that agent capability should be reported at the model-harness configuration level rather than attributed to the base model alone. Our analysis further identifies recurring execution-alignment failures, where plausible reasoning becomes decoupled from tool feedback, workspace state, evidence, or verifiable output contracts. Harness-Bench provides a reproducible foundation for diagnosing and improving reliable, efficient, and auditable agent execution stacks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Harness-Bench shows real variation across harnesses on shared tasks but the 106-task set lacks external grounding against real logs.

read the letter

The core finding is that the same models produce noticeably different completion rates, process quality, and failure modes when paired with different harnesses, based on 5194 trajectories. That observation is the paper's main contribution and it lands cleanly.

What works is the experimental design: fixed tasks, budgets, and protocols across harness configurations, with each harness keeping its native behavior. Recording traces, artifacts, and validator outputs beyond binary success is also a step up from many agent benchmarks. The note on execution-alignment failures (reasoning decoupling from tool feedback or state) is a useful diagnostic angle.

The soft spot is representativeness. The tasks were built from practical patterns and manually reviewed, but the paper gives no distributional comparison to real agent usage logs on metrics like tool-call sequences, state drift, or recovery patterns. If the selected tasks under-sample long-horizon nondeterminism or permission edges, the measured harness effects could be narrower than claimed. The central recommendation to report at the model-harness level follows from the observed variation, yet it would be more convincing with some external check on task coverage.

This is aimed at researchers who evaluate or deploy LLM agents and want to separate model capability from execution stack. It is coherent on its own terms and shows clear thinking about the evaluation gap. A serious editor should send it to peer review; the empirical scale and the question are worth referee time even if the task validation needs tightening.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Harness-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark consisting of 106 sandboxed offline tasks constructed from practical agent-use patterns. It evaluates representative harness configurations across multiple model backends under shared environments and protocols, recording 5,194 trajectories that show substantial variation in completion, process quality, efficiency, and failure behavior. The central claim is that these results justify reporting agent capability at the model-harness configuration level rather than the base model alone, while also identifying recurring execution-alignment failures.

Significance. If the tasks prove representative, the work would be significant for LLM agent evaluation by providing a reproducible foundation for isolating execution-layer effects and diagnosing alignment failures between reasoning and tool/workspace state. Explicit strengths include the sandboxed design, preservation of native harness behavior, detailed trace and validator recording, and focus on oracle-checkable tasks; these enable analyses beyond final success rates.

major comments (2)

[Task construction and validation] Task construction and validation (described in the methods section on the 106 tasks): the assertion of representativeness rests solely on construction from practical patterns plus manual review for realism/solvability/oracle-checkability, with no quantitative distributional statistics (tool-call sequences, state-transition complexity, recovery patterns, or nondeterminism) compared against real deployed agent logs or usage corpora. This is load-bearing for the generalization that observed harness effects reflect intrinsic execution-layer variation rather than benchmark artifacts.
[Results and analysis] Results and analysis section (reporting variation across 5,194 trajectories): the manuscript states 'substantial variation' and identifies recurring execution-alignment failures but supplies no details on the statistical tests, effect-size measures, or controls for multiple comparisons used to establish that differences across the five harness configurations are significant and not driven by task-specific artifacts.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly quantify key metrics (e.g., range of completion-rate deltas across harnesses) rather than relying on the qualitative phrase 'substantial variation'.
[Introduction/Methods] Notation for harness configurations and model backends should be introduced with a clear table or diagram early in the paper to aid readability of the experimental matrix.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below with honest responses and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Task construction and validation] Task construction and validation (described in the methods section on the 106 tasks): the assertion of representativeness rests solely on construction from practical patterns plus manual review for realism/solvability/oracle-checkability, with no quantitative distributional statistics (tool-call sequences, state-transition complexity, recovery patterns, or nondeterminism) compared against real deployed agent logs or usage corpora. This is load-bearing for the generalization that observed harness effects reflect intrinsic execution-layer variation rather than benchmark artifacts.

Authors: We agree that quantitative distributional statistics compared to real deployed agent logs would strengthen the claim of representativeness. Such data is not available to us, as it would require access to private usage logs from deployed systems. Our tasks were constructed from practical patterns and underwent manual review. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly discuss this limitation in the methods or discussion section and outline plans for future validation against available corpora where possible. The benchmark remains valuable for its controlled, oracle-checkable design that isolates harness effects. revision: partial
Referee: [Results and analysis] Results and analysis section (reporting variation across 5,194 trajectories): the manuscript states 'substantial variation' and identifies recurring execution-alignment failures but supplies no details on the statistical tests, effect-size measures, or controls for multiple comparisons used to establish that differences across the five harness configurations are significant and not driven by task-specific artifacts.

Authors: We concur that including statistical details would enhance the analysis. In the revised version, we will incorporate a statistical analysis subsection detailing the tests used (such as appropriate non-parametric tests for completion rates and efficiency metrics), effect sizes, and adjustments for multiple comparisons. We will also address potential task-specific artifacts by reporting variance across tasks and overall patterns. This addition will be made without altering the core findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark with no derivations or fitted reductions

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical benchmark (106 tasks, 5,194 trajectories) without equations, parameters fitted to subsets then re-predicted, or self-citation chains that bear the central claim. The claim that capability should be reported at the model-harness level follows directly from observed variation across configurations; no step reduces by construction to its own inputs. This is the expected non-finding for a benchmark-introduction paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on unstated assumptions about task representativeness and harness selection that are not detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5842 in / 1128 out tokens · 27320 ms · 2026-06-29T12:49:09.357243+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

RealClawBench: Live OpenClaw Benchmarks from Real Developer-Agent Sessions
cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

RealClawBench turns 281 real OpenClaw sessions into reproducible tasks that preserve the original distribution and shows the best of 14 models solves only 65.8 percent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Peter Kirgis, et al

URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=VTF8yNQM66. Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Peter Kirgis, et al. Holistic agent leaderboard: The missing infrastructure for ai agent evaluation, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11977. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023...

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents

ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uyTL5Bvosj. Featured Certification. Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversations. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=BAakY1hNKS. 10 Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, et al. O...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.52202/079017-1601 2024

[1] [1]

Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Peter Kirgis, et al

URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=VTF8yNQM66. Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Peter Kirgis, et al. Holistic agent leaderboard: The missing infrastructure for ai agent evaluation, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11977. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023...

work page arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents

ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uyTL5Bvosj. Featured Certification. Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversations. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=BAakY1hNKS. 10 Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, et al. O...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.52202/079017-1601 2024