Benchmark Almanac

LibraryDesignBench

Claude Opus 5.5 48.9 leads since September 2026
Not in model cards

An author agent designs a software library from an open spec. Three fresh agents then solve 242 problems with it, and the library scores by their pass rate and code simplicity.

15 tasks in Rust, Python, TypeScript and Haskell. Each trial scores pass rate squared times simplicity. The board has 11 runs.

Released
September 2026
Kind
Building whole projects
Level
Expert
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 increasingly build on code written by other agents, and they reimplement rather than reuse, growing the codebases later agents must work in. To measure how well agents design libraries for other agents, we introduce LibraryDesignBench, a two-phase benchmark in which an agent implements a full-featured library from a specification that defines required capabilities and potential use cases without prescribing the design. We evaluate the library through the correctness and simplicity of programs written by three user agents from different model families. The benchmark spans 242 expert-validated programming problems across 15 library-design tasks in four languages. On eleven of the fifteen tasks, agent designers reproduce the abstractions of the human-written production library. Downstream agents adopt agent- and human-written libraries alike but underuse them, reimplementing capabilities the library already provides. Our failure analysis finds that downstream agents write extra code mainly because agent-written libraries are rigid or hard to use, not because capabilities are missing. We also experiment with giving designers more prescriptive, agent-first guidance and having them test their library with subagents; this improves downstream scores and yields simpler programs. LibraryDesignBench provides both a testbed for evaluating library-design practices for agent users and an initial design baseline that improves downstream reuse.

Abstract of Can Agents Design Libraries for Agents? (arXiv:2609.36730, CC0)
9
Entries on its own leaderboard, 8 models we track

Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 48.9 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 Claude Opus 5.5 Library design; equal task weights 48.9
  2. 2 Claude Fable 5.1 Library design; equal task weights 47.5
  3. 3 GPT-6 Astra Library design; equal task weights 45.1
  4. 4 Kimi K3 Library design; equal task weights 44.0
  5. 5 GLM-5.3 Library design; equal task weights 41.9
  6. 6 Grok 4.6 Library design; equal task weights 39.7
  7. 7 GPT-5.6 Sol Library design; equal task weights 39.5
  8. 8 GPT-6 Sol Library design; equal task weights 38.5
  9. 9 DeepSeek V4 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Library design; equal task weights 31.2

Source: Official LibraryDesignBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5.5 48.9 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Fable 5.1 47.5 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-6 Astra 45.1 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Kimi K3 44.0 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GLM-5.3 41.9 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Grok 4.6 39.7 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.6 Sol 39.5 Library design; equal task weights, Codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-6 Sol 38.5 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 DeepSeek V4 Pro [snapshot unspecified] 31.2 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE Official leaderboard

Library quality vs. design cost

The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

30 40 50 60 $0$5$10$15$20$25 Mean design cost per library ($), lower is better Library quality (score) Kimi K3 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 44 score, mean design cost per library $8.7 GLM-5.3 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 41.9 score, mean design cost per library $21.1 Claude Fable 5.1 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 47.5 score, mean design cost per library $14.8 Claude Fable 5.1 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 42.6 score, mean design cost per library $14.4 GPT-6 Astra (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 44.1 score, mean design cost per library $4.51 DeepSeek V4 Pro [snapshot unspecified] (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 31.2 score, mean design cost per library $0.31. Not in our model list GPT-5.6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 39.5 score, mean design cost per library $2.14 Grok 4.6 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 39.7 score, mean design cost per library $2.63 GPT-6 Astra (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 45.1 score, mean design cost per library $3.63 Claude Opus 5.5 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 48.9 score, mean design cost per library $9.62 GPT-6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 38.5 score, mean design cost per library $0.3 Claude Opus 5.5 (Library design; equal task weights)GPT-6 Astra (Library design; equal task weights)Grok 4.6 (Library design; equal task weights)GPT-5.6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights)GPT-6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights) 30 40 50 60 $0$5$10$15$20$25 Mean design cost per library ($), lower is better Library quality (score) Kimi K3 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 44 score, mean design cost per library $8.7 GLM-5.3 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 41.9 score, mean design cost per library $21.1 Claude Fable 5.1 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 47.5 score, mean design cost per library $14.8 Claude Fable 5.1 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 42.6 score, mean design cost per library $14.4 GPT-6 Astra (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 44.1 score, mean design cost per library $4.51 DeepSeek V4 Pro [snapshot unspecified] (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 31.2 score, mean design cost per library $0.31. Not in our model list GPT-5.6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 39.5 score, mean design cost per library $2.14 Grok 4.6 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 39.7 score, mean design cost per library $2.63 GPT-6 Astra (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 45.1 score, mean design cost per library $3.63 Claude Opus 5.5 (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 48.9 score, mean design cost per library $9.62 GPT-6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights): Library quality 38.5 score, mean design cost per library $0.3 Claude Opus 5.5 (Library design; equal task weights)GPT-6 Astra (Library design; equal task weights)Grok 4.6 (Library design; equal task weights)GPT-5.6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights)GPT-6 Sol (Library design; equal task weights)
ModelSettingLibrary qualityMean design cost per library
Claude Opus 5.5 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 48.93 score $9.62
Claude Fable 5.1 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 47.49 score $14.81
GPT-6 Astra Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 45.07 score $3.63
GPT-6 Astra Library design; equal task weights, Codex 44.14 score $4.51
Kimi K3 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 44.01 score $8.7
Claude Fable 5.1 Library design; equal task weights, Claude Code 42.64 score $14.39
GLM-5.3 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 41.85 score $21.06
Grok 4.6 Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 39.67 score $2.63
GPT-5.6 Sol Library design; equal task weights, Codex 39.47 score $2.14
GPT-6 Sol Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 38.5 score $0.3
DeepSeek V4 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Library design; equal task weights, mini-SWE 31.23 score $0.31

The best score, 48.9, costs $9.62 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

OpenAI xAI Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5.5, Library design; equal task weights GPT-6 Astra, Library design; equal task weights Grok 4.6, Library design; equal task weights 0.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5.5, Library design; equal task weights GPT-6 Astra, Library design; equal task weights

Source: Official LibraryDesignBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5.5 Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 48.9 $9.62
Claude Fable 5.1 Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 47.5 $15
GPT-6 Astra Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 45.1 $3.63
GPT-6 Astra Library design; equal task weights Codex 44.1 $4.51
Kimi K3 Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 44.0 $8.70
Claude Fable 5.1 Library design; equal task weights Claude Code 42.6 $14
GLM-5.3 Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 41.9 $21
Grok 4.6 Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 39.7 $2.63
GPT-5.6 Sol Library design; equal task weights Codex 39.5 $2.14
GPT-6 Sol Library design; equal task weights mini-SWE 38.5 $0.30

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in September 2026

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 LibraryDesignBench 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
37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0

Source: Official LibraryDesignBench 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 Coding

All 282 in Coding
  • SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
  • LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests. DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
  • SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
  • DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
  • SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases. Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
  • Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471