Doc2Harness
Models build a coding-agent harness from an interface skeleton and a development document. The frozen harness then runs 328 scripted test cases in separate containers.
55 HF paper upvotes. The release covered nineteen frontier models.
- Released
- October 2026
- Kind
- AI research tasks
- Level
- Research frontier
- 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
Agents driven by large language models are increasingly deployed on long-horizon tasks, where they use tools and modify real workspaces. How well they perform depends as much on the harness around the model as on the model itself. Existing benchmarks measure downstream task success under a fixed harness, leaving harness engineering itself unexplored. We propose Doc2Harness, a two-stage benchmark that evaluates long-horizon harness engineering directly. In Stage 1, a build model operating inside a fixed builder harness receives an interface-only contract skeleton and a development document that consolidates behavior across twelve frontier harnesses, and then constructs a complete candidate harness in an isolated container. In Stage 2, the frozen candidate harness runs in containers separate from the construction environment, one per test case, and is driven end to end by a scripted mock model. We score each test case using four observable channels, namely the requests sent to the model, the files on disk, the process exit code, and the command output; positive controls rule out vacuous passes. Across nineteen frontier models, each evaluated with three independent builds on 328 test cases, GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest pass rate at 53.05%, while the weakest model reaches 27.44%, a gap of roughly twenty-six percentage points. Even the strongest model fails nearly half of the test cases, and failures cluster around how cross-cutting functionality is split across modules. To our knowledge, Doc2Harness provides the first deterministic benchmark for measuring long-horizon harness engineering.
GPT-6 Astra leads with 53% among models released by September 2026
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 12 more
- 53.0 GPT-6 Astra
- 46.6 Claude Opus 5
- 45.8
Qwen 3.8 Max
- 43.8 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 43.5 Grok 4.7
- 42.1 GLM-5.3
- 41.9 MiMo-V2.6 Flash
- 40.8
Step 5 Preview
- 40.2
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 38.9
Tencent Hy4 preview
- 38.3 Kimi K3
- 38.0 Claude Opus 4.8
- 34.6 GPT-5.5
- 32.6
Doubao Seed 2.1 Pro
- 32.2 Claude Opus 4.7
- 31.9
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 28.3 Claude Opus 4.6
- 27.6 GLM-5.2
- 27.4
Tencent Hy3
- 1 GPT-6 Astra 53%
- 2 Claude Opus 5 46.6%
- 3
Qwen 3.8 Max 45.8%
- 4 GPT-5.6 Sol 43.8%
- 5 Grok 4.7 43.5%
- 6 GLM-5.3 42.1%
- 7 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 41.9%
- 8
Step 5 Preview 40.8%
- 9
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 40.2%
- 10
Tencent Hy4 preview 38.9%
- 11 Kimi K3 38.3%
- 12 Claude Opus 4.8 38%
- 13 GPT-5.5 34.6%
- 14
Doubao Seed 2.1 Pro 32.6%
- 15 Claude Opus 4.7 32.2%
- 16
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 31.9%
- 17 Claude Opus 4.6 28.3%
- 18 GLM-5.2 27.6%
- 19
Tencent Hy3 27.4%
Source: Official Doc2Harness leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6 Astra | 53% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 5 | 46.6% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 45.8% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 43.8% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Grok 4.7 | 43.5% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GLM-5.3 | 42.1% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | MiMo-V2.6 Flash | 41.9% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 40.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 40.2% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 38.9% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | Kimi K3 | 38.3% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 38% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-5.5 | 34.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 32.6% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 32.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 31.9% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 28.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | GLM-5.2 | 27.6% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 27.4% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official Doc2Harness leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official Doc2Harness 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 AI research
- PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics.
Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
- MLS-Bench In use Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines. Claude Fable 5.1 50.3%
- PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
- MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
- KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup.
MiniMax-M3 28.8%
- PMPP-Hard In use Agents write GPU kernels for 69 tasks that must be correct, and on 48 of them also run within 1.25 times the reference time. The score is the area under the solved-tasks curve over a 10-hour budget, out of 690 task-hours.
Inkling 2 Small 494.3