Benchmark Almanac

InterCode-CTF

Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 98.7% leads since April 2025
Claude Opus 4.5 93.6% leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 98.7% leads since April 2025
Only in system cards

Agents solve 100 picoCTF capture-the-flag challenges in an interactive Bash and Python environment.

Agents work in an interactive Bash and Python environment on picoCTF challenges in coding, cryptography, reverse engineering and vulnerability finding. Google omits challenges that need internet access, leaving 76. UK AISI inspect_evals ships it as gdm_intercode_ctf.

Released
June 2023
Kind
Capture-the-flag challenges
Level
School
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.5 #61 on the capability index
Last in a system card
July 2025
Last model added
November 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Humans write code in a fundamentally interactive manner and rely on constant execution feedback to correct errors, resolve ambiguities, and decompose tasks. While LLMs have recently exhibited promising coding capabilities, current coding benchmarks mostly consider a static instruction-to-code sequence transduction process, which has the potential for error propagation and a disconnect between the generated code and its final execution environment. To address this gap, we introduce InterCode, a lightweight, flexible, and easy-to-use framework of interactive coding as a standard reinforcement learning (RL) environment, with code as actions and execution feedback as observations. Our framework is language and platform agnostic, uses self-contained Docker environments to provide safe and reproducible execution, and is compatible out-of-the-box with traditional seq2seq coding methods, while enabling the development of new methods for interactive code generation. We use InterCode to create three interactive code environments with Bash, SQL, and Python as action spaces, leveraging data from the static NL2Bash, Spider, and MBPP datasets. We demonstrate InterCode's viability as a testbed by evaluating multiple state-of-the-art LLMs configured with different prompting strategies such as ReAct and Plan & Solve. Our results showcase the benefits of interactive code generation and demonstrate that InterCode can serve as a challenging benchmark for advancing code understanding and generation capabilities. InterCode is designed to be easily extensible and can even be used to create new tasks such as Capture the Flag, a popular coding puzzle that is inherently multi-step and involves multiple programming languages. Project site with code and data: https://intercode-benchmark.github.io

Abstract of InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedback (arXiv:2306.14898, CC0)
4
Models scored in lab cards
4
System cards report it, from 1 lab

2 models share the top score of 98.7% among models released by June 2025

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.

Claude Opus 4.5 leads with 93.6% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Gemini 2.5 Pro leads with 98.7%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in June 2025, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 98.7%
  2. 2 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 98.7%
  3. 3 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 97.4%
  4. 4 Gemma 2 27B 44.7%

Source: Labs’ model cards

Source: Official InterCode-CTF leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 98.7% Apr 2025 Lab model card
2 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 98.7% Jul 2025 Lab model card
3 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 97.4% Jul 2025 Lab model card
4 Gemma 2 27B 44.7% Jul 2024 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.5 93.6% Inspect/GDM task exclusions, Inspect gdm_intercode_ctf Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.1 89.7% Inspect/GDM task exclusions, Inspect gdm_intercode_ctf Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 98.7% Apr 2025 Lab model card
2 Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 98.7% Jul 2025 Lab model card
3 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 97.4% Jul 2025 Lab model card
4 Claude Opus 4.5 93.6% Inspect/GDM task exclusions, Inspect gdm_intercode_ctf Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.1 89.7% Inspect/GDM task exclusions, Inspect gdm_intercode_ctf Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Gemma 2 27B 44.7% Jul 2024 Lab model card

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 2 models. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in June 2023 Number one over time 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in June 2023

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

Google DeepMind
Lab claims Passed 85% in Apr 2025, by Gemini 2.5 Pro

Source: Labs’ model cards

Google DeepMind’s own number for Gemini 2.5 Pro passed 85% in April 2025

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemma 2 27B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemma 2 27B

Sources: Official InterCode-CTF leaderboard and 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.

4 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jul 7, 2025 Gemini 2.5 Pro technical report 97.4 InterCode-CTF (easy), 74/76 solved (Table 10, Figure 10) Cyber risk
Jul 7, 2025 Gemini 2.5 Flash technical report 98.7 InterCode-CTF (easy), 75/76 solved (Figure 10 bar label) Cyber risk
Apr 28, 2025 Gemini 2.5 Pro model card 98.7 InterCode-CTF (easy), 75/76 solved (Table 1, Figure 2) Cyber risk
Jul 31, 2024 Gemma 2 27B technical report 44.7 InterCode-CTF, 34/76 challenges solved (45%), internet-requiring challenges omitted (Table 19) Cyber risk

More in Cybersecurity

All 115 in Cybersecurity
  • ExploitGym In use 869 real-vulnerability exploit-development tasks (userspace, V8, Linux kernel). Success means capturing a flag through the intended vulnerability. GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
  • ExploitBench In use 41 recent V8 JavaScript-engine N-day vulnerabilities. Progress measured by 16 grader-verified capability flags across five tiers. GPT-6 Astra 100%
  • CyberBench v1.1 (Vals) In use Agents work on OSS-Fuzz memory-safety bugs from ARVO images in two tracks. They write a proof-of-concept input that crashes the target, or patch the source so the crash stops and tests still pass. Muse Wonder 80.4%
  • SRE-Bench In use Software reverse engineering without source: 262 binary instances from 19 private programs, each with six graded objectives. GPT-6 Astra 56.9%
  • CyScenarioBench In use Scenario-based long-horizon security challenges in sandboxes, organized in task, scenario and campaign tiers. Evaluation set kept private. Gemini 4 Argon 100%
  • ExploitBench - Internal Port In use Agents develop working exploits for recently disclosed vulnerabilities to limit contamination. Scored as arbitrary code execution success rate. GPT-6 Cyber 42%