Benchmark Almanac

CLASHarness

GPT-6 Astra 28.7% leads since October 2026
Not in model cards

Computer-use agents work in multi-agent setups where peers report stale states, give contradictory instructions or compete for files. Agents must check claims against the environment.

It had 34 Hugging Face paper upvotes and 8 GitHub stars.

Made by
Google Research
Released
October 2026
Kind
Desktop apps
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last model added
September 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems to automate complex computer-use workflows, yet existing benchmarks mostly assume consistent, cooperative environments. In contrast, real-world collaboration rarely runs on consistent information: peer or sub-agents frequently report outdated states, issue contradictory instructions, or compete over shared permissions and files, forcing agents to check others' outputs and verify ground truth in the environment. Evaluating such conflict resolution remains challenging: manual authoring cannot scale across complex systems, while unconstrained LLM generation produces narrative drift, answer leakage, and unsatisfiable rubrics. We introduce CLASHarness (Conflict-Loaded Agent Scenario Harness), a controllable framework for generating verifiable multi-agent conflicts in computer use, with a benchmark of 600 multi-round tasks. By combining hierarchical scenario planning with an eight-step verified micro-pipeline, CLASHarness pre-commits decisive visual facts before rendering and compiles hybrid code and semantic graders directly from executed reference trajectories, guaranteeing every task is solvable by construction. Evaluating 15 frontier models on CLASHarness reveals three core bottlenecks. First, when sub-agent outputs conflict with the environment, weaker models blindly follow misleading information, whereas stronger models inspect visual evidence to verify ground truth. Second, resolving conflicts is much harder than finding them: while agents can spot inconsistencies, actively fixing system state drops task success significantly. Third, coordination protocols remain a universal bottleneck: even frontier models fail over 58% of closing actions, often forgetting to release shared locks or hand off tasks. CLASHarness provides a scalable, verifiable foundation for building reliable multi-agent systems.

Abstract of CLASHarness: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Conflict in Computer Use via a Controllable and Verifiable Generation Pipeline (arXiv:2610.19128, CC0)
15
Entries on its own leaderboard, 14 models we track

GPT-6 Astra leads with 28.7% among models released by September 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in September 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 GPT-6 Astra high 28.7%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 5 medium 25.3%
  3. 3 GPT-5.6 Sol high 24.5%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.8 medium 23.8%
  5. 5 Kimi K3 high 21.8%
  6. 6 Gemini 3.7 Flash medium 21.5%
  7. 7 Claude Sonnet 5 high 20.8%
  8. 8 Gemini 3.6 Flash medium 20.2%
  9. 9 GPT-5.6 Terra high 20%
  10. 10 DeepSeek-V4-Pro high; OCR transcripts 19.8%
  11. 11 GPT-5.6 Luna high 19.8%
  12. 12 GLM-5.2 FP8 high; OCR transcripts 14.7%
  13. 13 Gemini 3.5 Flash low 13.5%
  14. 14 Gemini 3.1 Pro high 12%
  15. 15 DeepSeek-V4-Flash high; OCR transcripts 8.50%

Source: Official CLASHarness leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Astra 28.7% high, CLASHarness Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 5 25.3% medium, CLASHarness Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.6 Sol 24.5% high, CLASHarness Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.8 23.8% medium, CLASHarness May 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Kimi K3 21.8% high, CLASHarness Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 3.7 Flash 21.5% medium, CLASHarness Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Sonnet 5 20.8% high, CLASHarness Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3.6 Flash 20.2% medium, CLASHarness Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5.6 Terra 20% high, CLASHarness Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 19.8% high; OCR transcripts, CLASHarness Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5.6 Luna 19.8% high, CLASHarness Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GLM-5.2 FP8 14.7% high; OCR transcripts, CLASHarness Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 3.5 Flash 13.5% low, CLASHarness May 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 3.1 Pro 12% high, CLASHarness Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
15 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 8.50% high; OCR transcripts, CLASHarness Apr 2026 Official leaderboard

More effort adds a median 2 points

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
Claude Opus 5 CLASHarness
low
25.3%
GPT-5.6 Sol CLASHarness
low medium
24.5%
Claude Opus 4.8 CLASHarness
low medium
23.8%
Gemini 3.7 Flash CLASHarness
low
21.5%
Claude Sonnet 5 CLASHarness
low medium high
20.8%
Gemini 3.6 Flash CLASHarness
low
20.2%
GPT-5.6 Terra CLASHarness
low medium
20%
GPT-5.6 Luna CLASHarness
low
19.8%
Gemini 3.5 Flash CLASHarness
low medium
13.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro CLASHarness
low high
12%

Source: Official CLASHarness leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-6 Astra high CLASHarness 28.7%
Claude Opus 5 medium CLASHarness 25.3%
Claude Opus 5 high CLASHarness 25.2%
GPT-5.6 Sol high CLASHarness 24.5%
Claude Opus 4.8 medium CLASHarness 23.8%
Claude Opus 5 low CLASHarness 23.5%
GPT-5.6 Sol medium CLASHarness 23%
Claude Opus 4.8 high CLASHarness 22.8%
Kimi K3 high CLASHarness 21.8%
Gemini 3.7 Flash medium CLASHarness 21.5%
Claude Opus 4.8 low CLASHarness 21.3%
Claude Sonnet 5 high CLASHarness 20.8%
GPT-5.6 Sol low CLASHarness 20.8%
Gemini 3.7 Flash low CLASHarness 20.5%
Gemini 3.7 Flash high CLASHarness 20.3%
Gemini 3.6 Flash medium CLASHarness 20.2%
GPT-5.6 Terra high CLASHarness 20%
GPT-5.6 Terra medium CLASHarness 20%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high; OCR transcripts CLASHarness 19.8%
GPT-5.6 Luna high CLASHarness 19.8%
GPT-5.6 Luna low CLASHarness 19.5%
Gemini 3.6 Flash high CLASHarness 18.5%
Gemini 3.6 Flash low CLASHarness 18.5%
GPT-5.6 Luna medium CLASHarness 17.7%
GPT-5.6 Terra low CLASHarness 17.7%
Claude Sonnet 5 medium CLASHarness 17%
Claude Sonnet 5 low CLASHarness 13.8%
Gemini 3.5 Flash low CLASHarness 13.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro high CLASHarness 12%
Gemini 3.1 Pro medium CLASHarness 9.80%
DeepSeek-V4-Flash high; OCR transcripts CLASHarness 8.50%
Gemini 3.1 Pro low CLASHarness 8.30%
Gemini 3.5 Flash medium CLASHarness 3.20%
Gemini 3.5 Flash high CLASHarness 3.00%

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard 1 leader
GPT-6 Astra 28.7%

Source: Official CLASHarness leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Astra GPT-5.6 Sol DeepSeek-V4-Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Astra DeepSeek-V4-Pro

Source: Official CLASHarness leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Computer and browser use

All 69 in Computer and browser use
  • BrowseComp In use Hard-to-find facts that need persistent web browsing. Short verifiable answers graded for exact correctness. Claude Fable 5 93.3%
  • ScreenSpot-Pro In use GUI grounding on high-resolution professional-software screenshots. The model must locate the target UI element. GPT-6 Astra 92.7%
  • AndroidWorld In use Agents complete 116 tasks across 20 real Android apps in an emulator. Each task checks the device's system state to judge success. GPT-6 Astra 100%
  • OSWorld 2.1 In use Agents complete 108 long-horizon workflows across 31 self-hosted websites and desktop apps, averaging 318 tool calls. Scored by binary completion and checkpoint partial credit. Claude Opus 5.5 81.8%
  • WebArena-Verified In use Agents complete 812 audited WebArena tasks on self-hosted websites. Deterministic evaluators check the agent's answer and captured network traces. Muse Spark 1.1 69%
  • MobileWorld In use Agents complete 201 tasks across 20 mobile apps, including tasks that need user clarification or MCP tools. Backend checks verify success. GPT-5 55.3%