Agentic Coding
Open Benchmarks Grants

Terminal-Bench 3.0

The next frontier benchmark for terminal agents. A harder, more domain-diverse successor to Terminal-Bench 2.1 — built in the open, task by task, under continuous adversarial review.

Built with
Image
Image
Image
Image

At a glance

74

tasks in the v0.1 release

7

top-level domains in the taxonomy

31

subdomains spanning those 7 domains

35

rubric criteria every task must pass before merge

~34%

best model's pass rate
on v0.1, vs. ~5% for
the best open-weight model

Leaderboard

Rank Model Effort Agent Resolution Rate Release Date Tokens Cost
1 Opus 5 max mini-SWE-agent
42.7% ±1.6
2026-07-24 7.3B $5.8k
2 GPT-5.6 Sol max Codex
34.6% ±1.6
2026-07-09 5.8B $4.0k
3 Fable 5 max Claude Code
34.1% ±1.7
2026-06-09 3.6B $6.5k
4 GLM 5.3 max Claude Code
32.4% ±1.5
2026-08-14 5.6B $1.8k
5 Grok 4.6 high Grok Build
26.5% ±1.5
2026-08-12 2.9B $2.1k
6 Opus 4.8 max Claude Code
21.1% ±1.6
2026-05-28 5.2B $5.2k
7 GPT-5.6 Terra max Codex
20.8% ±1.4
2026-07-09 7.0B $2.5k
8 SWE-1.7 Lightning Devin
18.6% ±1.5
2026-07-08 3.6B $7.2k
9 Grok 4.5 xhigh Cursor CLI
15.7% ±1.5
2026-07-08 1.2B $766.02
10 Sonnet 5 max Claude Code
14.6% ±1.5
2026-06-30 17.9B $6.9k
11 GPT-5.6 Luna max Codex
14.3% ±1.3
2026-07-09 11.9B $1.6k
12 GLM 5.2 max Claude Code
4.6% ±1
2026-06-13 3.3B $3.4k

TAXONOMY

Seven domains, 31 subdomains

Every task is classified by the primary skill it exercises, not incidental tooling. The domain list is closed; subdomains grow as new tasks arrive.

science

Natural sciences & engineering

Biology

Chemistry
Physics
Earth
Robotics
Math
Linguistics

Software

General software engineering

Algorithms
Systems
Databases
Data engineering
Frontend
Languages

ML

Training, serving & eval

Training
Inference
Evaluation
Kernels

Operations

Business & financial reasoning

Finance
Logistics
Supply chain
Claims
Compliance
Marketing

Security

Offensive & defensive security

Cryptography
Reverse engineering
Forensics
AppSec

Hardware

Physical & digital hardware

CAD
RTL
Media

Creative & design work

Music
Design
Review pipeline

Every task earns its place

Before a task counts toward Terminal-Bench 3.0, it passes through an automated + human review pipeline designed to catch broken tasks and reward-hacking before they ever reach the leaderboard.

01

Static checks

Canary, Dockerfile sanity, path & metadata validation — no API keys required.
02
Rubric review
An agent scores the task against 35 criteria: verifiable, solvable, difficult, anti-cheat robust.
03
Docker / Oracle / No-op
Environment builds; the reference solution passes; doing nothing fails.
04

Maintainer review

A maintainer reviews the task once all automated gates pass.
05
Agent & cheat trials
Multiple agents attempt the task; adversarial trials probe for reward hacking.
06
Hacker–fixer loop
An adversarial loop iteratively hardens the task against exploits before merge.
07
Merged
Counts toward Frontier-Bench and becomes eligible for the leaderboard.
of

How Terminal-Bench 3.0 compares

Several recent benchmarks make progress on behavioral testing and instruction realism. The following table provides a brief comparison.

Benchmark

Task style

Domain span

Anti-cheat

Terminal-Bench 3.0

Community-submitted, expert-reviewed terminal tasks

7 domains / 31 subdomains

Rubric + cheat trials + hacker–fixer hardening loop

Terminal-Bench 2.1

89 fixed terminal tasks, continuously validated

Software, ML, security, data, science, sysadmin

Continuous validation, community-reported fixes

Senior SWE-Bench

Real PRs from 12 OSS repos, taste-graded

Software engineering only

Rubric + bloat + practice + relative-taste gates

OSWorld 2.0

Long-horizon computer-use workflows

7 professional domains, 31 self-hosted sites

Separate safety audit (8 checks)

From the blog

Image for Why Frontier Agents Fail Real Engineering Work: Two Terminal-Bench 3.0 Task Deep Dives

Why Frontier Agents Fail Real Engineering Work: Two Terminal-Bench 3.0 Task Deep Dives

Terminal-Bench 3.0 (formerly Frontier-Bench) recently launched, built to track what AI agents can and can’t do across real computer work....

Behind the benchmark

Terminal-Bench 3.0 is hosted by Harbor and the Laude Institute, led by Ryan Marten, Alex Shaw, Andy Konwinski, and Ludwig Schmidt, with data and research contributions from Snorkel AI led by Justin Bauer and Vincent Sunn Chen, and additional support through Snorkel's Open Benchmarks Grants program. Justin Bauer was also among the benchmark's reviewers.

Acknowledgments

Terminal-Bench 3.0 is hosted by Harbor and the Laude Institute, led by Ryan Marten, Alex Shaw, Andy Konwinski, and Ludwig Schmidt, with data and research contributions from Snorkel AI led by Justin Bauer and Vincent Sunn Chen, and additional support through Snorkel's Open Benchmarks Grants program. Justin Bauer was also among the benchmark's reviewers.

FAQs

Get notified when we launch a new benchmark

Share this benchmark

More benchmarks

Knowledge Work

MBABench 2.0

Evaluates agents on building financial models in spreadsheets, across 101 expert-written tasks.

By pass rate
1
Image
Astra (Codex)
15.8%
2
Image
Fable 5.1 (Claude Code)
7.9%
3
Image
Astra (ChatGPT)
7.9%
Software Engineering

SWE-bench CLI

Evaluates validated multi-file code changes in open-source repositories.

By pass@1
1
Image
Opus 5.5
16.6%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
14.5%
3
Image
Opus 5
14.0%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelRevOps

Evaluates revenue-operations workflows involving systems, controls, and business-state updates.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
15.8%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
14.0%
3
Image
Kimi K3
13.1%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelFinance 2.0

Evaluates financial workflows requiring evidence gathering, analysis, and compliance.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
25.1%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
21.2%
3
Image
Grok 4.7
20.2%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelUnderwrite 2.0

Evaluates auditable insurance underwriting decisions using incomplete, distributed evidence.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.7
30.5%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
30.4%
3
Image
Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B
30.0%
Agentic Coding

Agentic Coding 2.0

Evaluating whether coding agents can plan, execute, verify, and recover across complex terminal-native engineering tasks.

By pass@1
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
47.6%
2
Image
GPT-6.1 Sol
42.8%
3
Image
Opus 5.5
40.4%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelManufacturing

Evaluates manufacturing decisions using fragmented plant-floor, engineering, and supplier evidence.

By pass@1
1
Image
GPT-6.1 Sol
19.6%
2
Image
Grok 4.6
16.4%
3
Image
Grok 4.7
12.1%
Knowledge Work

WorkplaceAgents

Evaluates AI agents on economically valuable professional work and verifiable workplace deliverables.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
17.1%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
15.8%
3
Image
Grok 4.7
15.2%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelLegal

Evaluates legal workflows requiring evidence, procedure, authority, and action.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
40.7%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
37.8%
3
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
36.5%
Software Engineering

LibraryDesignBench

Measures how well AI agents design libraries that other agents can use.

Pass Rate
1
Image
Opus 5.5
48.9%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
47.5%
3
Image
GPT-6 Astra (mini-SWE)
45.1%
Agentic Coding

Terminal-Bench 4.0

Evaluates terminal agents on continuously updated software-engineering tasks.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
Opus 5.5
64.8%
2
Image
Sonnet 5.5
61.8%
3
Image
GPT-6 Astra
58.2%
Science & Research

Terminal-Bench-Science

Evaluates agents on scientific workflows derived from researchers’ own work.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
68.1%
2
Image
Opus 5.5
63.3%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
40.0%
Software Engineering

Senior SWE-bench

Evaluates coding agents on senior-level software engineering tasks.

Tasteful Solve Rate
1
Image
Opus 5.5
39.3%
2
Image
GPT-6 Astra
36.8%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
34.7%
Computer Use

OSWorld 2.0

Evaluates computer-use agents on 108 long-horizon workflows.

By Binary Accuracy (500 steps)
1
Image
Opus 5 · max
44.33%
2
Image
Muse Spark 1.3 · max
39.25%
3
Image
Opus 5 · high
36.89%
Knowledge Work

Agents’ Last Exam

Evaluating AI agents on long-horizon, economically valuable professional workflows with verifiable outcomes.

By Pass Rate
1
Image
Opus 5.5
38.2%
2
Image
GPT-6 Astra
34.2%
3
Image
GPT-6 Sol
32.2%
Software Engineering

SlopCode Bench

Measures coding-agent performance across evolving software requirements.

By Iso Solve
1
Image
GPT-5.5
28.06%
2
Image
GPT-5.3
26.02%
3
Image
GPT-5.4
23.47%
Capability/Efficiency

Continual Learning Bench

Measures improvement across sequential, stateful tasks.

By Agg. Reward
1
Image
Sonnet 4.6
+0.196
2
Image
GPT-5.4
+0.189
3
Image
Sonnet 4.6
+0.185
of
 Illution Back
Illution Front

For models that need to be right. Not just good enough.