LibraryDesignBench
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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- and 11 more
- 1 Claude Opus 5.5 Library design; equal task weights 48.9
- 2 Claude Fable 5.1 Library design; equal task weights 47.5
- 3 GPT-6 Astra Library design; equal task weights 45.1
- 4 Kimi K3 Library design; equal task weights 44.0
- 5 GLM-5.3 Library design; equal task weights 41.9
- 6 Grok 4.6 Library design; equal task weights 39.7
- 7 GPT-5.6 Sol Library design; equal task weights 39.5
- 8 GPT-6 Sol Library design; equal task weights 38.5
- 9 DeepSeek V4 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Library design; equal task weights 31.2
Source: Official LibraryDesignBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
| Model | Setting | Library quality | Mean 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.
Source: Official LibraryDesignBench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output 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.
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.
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
- 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