Destructive production evaluation (Anthropic)
Agents finish a task in a simulated production system under time pressure. Scored on destructive actions and on giving up too early.
In-house Anthropic evaluation. Claude Opus 4.6 simulates the tool results.
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Kept private
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 4.7 #30 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- April 2026
- Last model added
- April 2026
Claude Mythos Preview leads with 0.30%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1 Claude Mythos Preview 0.30%
- 2 Claude Opus 4.7 2.50%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Mythos Preview | 0.30% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 2.50% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
2 system cards report it, from 1 lab
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | 2.5 | Destructive Production Eval (synthetic backend), destructive action rate, printed on chart, lower is better. Ineffective (over-refusal) 1.1%. Verbalized evaluation awareness in about 9% of transcripts (6.3.1.1, Figure 6.3.1.1.A) | Alignment |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Claude Mythos Preview system card | 0.3 | Destructive Actions in (simulated) Production, dedicated synthetic-backend evaluation, destructive action rate, lower is better, stated in text; ineffective an additional 0.5 (4.3.1.1, Figure 4.3.1.1.A) | Alignment |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6% - Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts.
Gemini 4 Carbon 0% - DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics.
Muse Spark 1.2 88.4% - Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
- IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%