Benchmark Almanac

HarnessDev

Claude Opus 4.8 67.8% leads since September 2026
Not in model cards

Agents build a complete agent harness from a minimal seed, then revise their own harness using downstream execution feedback. The harness's task results are the score.

100 HF paper upvotes. Two stages, Creation and Evolution. Sister benchmark of S3Gym on the same project site.

Made by
ByteDance Seed
Released
September 2026
Kind
AI research tasks
Level
Research frontier
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
Last model added
May 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

As agents move from research prototypes to deployed tools, their capability increasingly depends on model-external execution infrastructure, commonly termed the agent harness. Changing this harness while holding model weights fixed can substantially alter task performance. Current agent evaluations typically report downstream performance under a chosen harness, leaving a model's ability to develop the harness itself comparatively underexplored. We introduce HarnessDev, a benchmark that shifts the unit of evaluation from task outputs to runnable infrastructure. HarnessDev covers two stages. In Creation, the agent starts from a minimal seed and a small number of cases, then builds a complete execution system. In Evolution, it starts from its own created harness and iteratively revises it using downstream execution feedback, with the goal of improving benchmark performance. We then evaluate each constructed harness on capability (task success on held-out benchmarks) and efficiency (execution-token cost). The reported Creation results cover six creator LLMs, four domains, and five downstream benchmarks totaling 2,207 unique downstream instances, with hidden evaluation tasks withheld from development. We find that generated harnesses remain substantially behind mature human-engineered references on code and on search and research, while matching or exceeding the selected references on writing and machine-learning experimentation, with large variation in execution cost. Evolution produces some performance gains, but they are unstable and transfer only partially to held-out tasks. Experiments with a fixed runtime model further show that the gains depend strongly on the model executing the harness, indicating limited transfer across models.

Abstract of HarnessDev: Can LLMs Create and Evolve Their Own Agent Harness? (arXiv:2609.01437, CC0)
6
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 67.8% among models released by May 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. Every run is in the next chart.

The newest model with a score here came out in May 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 Claude Opus 4.8 Self-Eval , high effort 67.8%
  2. 2 Gemini 3.1 Pro Self-Eval , high effort 55.6%
  3. 3 GPT-5.5 Self-Eval , high effort 55.1%
  4. 4 Qwen3.7-Max Unified-Eval 52.8%
  5. 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro Unified-Eval , high effort 48.8%
  6. 6 Seed2.0 Pro Unified-Eval , high effort 29.8%

Source: Official HarnessDev leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 67.8% Self-Eval , high effort May 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 55.6% Self-Eval , high effort Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.5 55.1% Self-Eval , high effort Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen3.7-Max 52.8% Unified-Eval May 2026 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 48.8% Unified-Eval , high effort Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Seed2.0 Pro 29.8% Unified-Eval , high effort Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

More effort adds a median 7 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 4.8
Unified-Ev… Self-Eval …
67.8%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Self-Eval …
55.6%
GPT-5.5
Unified-Ev… Self-Eval …
55.1%
Qwen3.7-Max
Self-Eval Unified-Ev…
52.8%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
Self-Eval … Unified-Ev…
48.8%
Seed2.0 Pro
Self-Eval … Unified-Ev…
29.8%

Source: Official HarnessDev leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.8 Self-Eval , high effort 67.8%
Gemini 3.1 Pro Self-Eval , high effort 55.6%
Gemini 3.1 Pro Unified-Eval , high effort 55.6%
GPT-5.5 Self-Eval , high effort 55.1%
Claude Opus 4.8 Unified-Eval , high effort 53.3%
Qwen3.7-Max Unified-Eval 52.8%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Unified-Eval , high effort 48.8%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Self-Eval , high effort 45.2%
GPT-5.5 Unified-Eval , high effort 44.8%
Qwen3.7-Max Self-Eval 44%
Seed2.0 Pro Unified-Eval , high effort 29.8%
Seed2.0 Pro Self-Eval , high effort 22.8%

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2026

Source: Official HarnessDev 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%) Claude Opus 4.8 Gemini 3.1 Pro Seed2.0 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 Gemini 3.1 Pro

Source: Official HarnessDev 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

All 104 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