Software Engineering
Open Benchmarks Grants

Senior SWE-Bench

A benchmark for evaluating coding agents on senior-level engineering work: building features from realistic instructions, investigating bugs that require runtime investigation, and shipping code that aligns to existing codebase conventions. 

Built with
Image
Image
Image

At a glance

100

tasks (50 public/ 50 private)

12

open-source repositories

6

evaluation gates per task

15+

agents evaluated

100+

PR-author commits required

Frontier performance

      Leaderboard

      Statistic
      Rank
      Model
      Harness
      Effort
      Tasteful Solve Rate (pass@1)
      Basic Solve Rate (pass@1)
      Avg Steps
      Avg Tokens
      1 Fable 5.1 Mini-SWE-Agent medium
      34.7%
      57.9%
      77 37.9K
      2 Fable 5 Mini-SWE-Agent high
      34.7%
      53.7%
      119 58.4K
      3 Opus 5 Mini-SWE-Agent high
      34.7%
      62.1%
      141 71.0K
      4 GPT-5.6 Sol Mini-SWE-Agent xhigh
      34.7%
      53.7%
      50 32.7K
      5 Opus 4.8 Mini-SWE-Agent max
      30.5%
      44.2%
      138 134.2K
      6 GPT-5.5 Mini-SWE-Agent xhigh
      29.5%
      52.6%
      85 36.1K
      7 Sonnet 5 Mini-SWE-Agent max
      28%
      50.5%
      318 180.7K
      8 Grok 4.7 Mini-SWE-Agent xhigh
      27.4%
      49.5%
      150 39.4K
      9 GPT-5.6 Terra Mini-SWE-Agent high
      27.4%
      36.8%
      36 18.2K
      10 Grok 4.6 Mini-SWE-Agent high
      26.3%
      51.6%
      125 23.9K
      11 Grok 4.5 Mini-SWE-Agent medium
      23.2%
      50.5%
      72 21.2K
      12 MiniMax M3 Mini-SWE-Agent adaptive
      21.1%
      41.1%
      335 75.8K
      13 Kimi K3 Mini-SWE-Agent max
      20.2%
      40.4%
      224 54.8K
      14 Opus 4.7 Mini-SWE-Agent max
      18.1%
      46.8%
      285 100.9K
      15 GLM-5.2 Mini-SWE-Agent max
      17.9%
      35.8%
      194 66.2K
      16 GPT-5.4 Mini-SWE-Agent xhigh
      16.8%
      41.1%
      86 53.9K
      17 Gemini 3.7 Flash Mini-SWE-Agent high
      14.7%
      44.2%
      254 47.3K
      18 Gemini 3.5 Flash Mini-SWE-Agent high
      6.3%
      22.1%
      231 70.4K
      19 Gemini 3.1 Pro Mini-SWE-Agent high
      2.1%
      9.5%
      108 17.3K

      Basic solve rate is the share of an agent's runs that pass every pre-written verifier and automated validation test. Tasteful solve rate requires all of that and clears every additional quality gate: rubric, bloat, codebase practice, and relative taste vs. an expert reference.

      Source repositories

      Twelve open-source projects sampled across libraries, tools, services, and full applications. Most Senior SWE-Bench tasks are based on PRs authored by engineers with 100 commits in the respective repository, with maintainer-authored PRs oversampled.

      Repository Languages Type Description LOC Started Stars
      electric-sql/electric Elixir, TypeScript Service Postgres real-time sync 345k 2022 10.2k
      go-gitea/gitea Go Application Self-hosted Git forge 397k 2016 56.3k
      PostHog/posthog Python, TypeScript Application Product analytics platform 3.8M 2020 35.1k
      PrefectHQ/prefect Python Library Workflow orchestration 664k 2018 22.6k
      better-auth/better-auth TypeScript Library Authentication framework 289k 2024 28.7k
      gravitational/teleport Go, TypeScript Application Infrastructure access platform 2.8M 2015 20.5k
      vercel/turborepo Rust, TypeScript Tool Monorepo build system 215k 2021 30.6k
      plausible/analytics Elixir Application Privacy-friendly web analytics 228k 2018 27.2k
      firezone/firezone Elixir, Rust Application Zero-trust access platform 247k 2020 8.7k
      paperless-ngx/paperless-ngx Python, TypeScript Application Document management system 148k 2022 42.2k
      immich-app/immich TypeScript Application Self-hosted photo backup 542k 2022 103.6k
      harbor-framework/harbor Python Tool Agent evaluation harness 219k 2025 2.5k

      Sample tasks

      All 50 public task families across twelve open-source projects. Each task ships with a sandboxed environment, an expert-authored validation spec, and a reference solution. Tasteful Solve is the share of frontier-agent attempts that pass both the functional verifier and the taste review.

      Investigate
      performance
      better-auth-fix-api-key-run
      Solve rate: 0%
       By better-auth
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      better-auth-fix-api-return-response
      Solve rate: 0%
       By better-auth
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      better-auth-fix-oauth-provider-return
      Solve rate: 0%
       By better-auth
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      better-auth-fix-resolve-dynamic-baseurl
      Solve rate: 0%
       By better-auth
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      electric-feat-add-variadic-function
      Solve rate: 0%
       By electric
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      electric-feat-sync-service-start
      Solve rate: 33%
       By electric
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      electric-fix-classify-admission-control
      Solve rate: 11%
       By electric
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      electric-fix-elixir-client-cache
      Solve rate: 22%
       By electric
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      electric-fix-resolve-pending-shapes
      Solve rate: 0%
       By electric
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      performance
      electric-perf-array-filter-eval
      Solve rate: 0%
       By electric
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      firezone-feat-portal-add-recent
      Solve rate: 0%
       By firezone
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      firezone-fix-connlib-align-device
      Solve rate: 0%
       By firezone
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      gitea-add-project-column-picker
      Solve rate: 0%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      gitea-feat-fast-forward-only
      Solve rate: 0%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      gitea-fix-codeql-code-scanning
      Solve rate: 0%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      gitea-fix-diff-highlight-overlap
      Solve rate: 0%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      gitea-fix-force-push-timeline
      Solve rate: 0%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      gitea-fix-incorrect-viewed-files
      Solve rate: 11%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      migration
      gitea-refactor-auth-middleware
      Solve rate: 78%
       By gitea
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      harbor-add-agent-file-retention
      Solve rate: 11%
       By harbor
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      harbor-add-multi-step-tasks
      Solve rate: 0%
       By harbor
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      harbor-add-windows-tasks-support
      Solve rate: 11%
       By harbor
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      harbor-refactor-optional-sandbox-deps
      Solve rate: 0%
       By harbor
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      immich-feat-recently-added-assets
      Solve rate: 13%
       By immich
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      immich-feat-release-candidate-detection
      Solve rate: 0%
       By immich
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      immich-fix-server-live-photo
      Solve rate: 0%
       By immich
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      paperless-ngx-feat-saved-view-sharing
      Solve rate: 29%
       By paperless-ngx
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      performance
      paperless-ngx-perf-document-counts
      Solve rate: 11%
       By paperless-ngx
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      performance
      paperless-ngx-perf-workflow-queries
      Solve rate: 89%
       By paperless-ngx
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      paperless-ngx-refactor-task-system
      Solve rate: 0%
       By paperless-ngx
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      plausible-feat-shared-dashboard-deeplink
      Solve rate: 0%
       By plausible
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      plausible-fix-cross-site-resource-attach
      Solve rate: 0%
       By plausible
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      plausible-fix-top-pages-comparison
      Solve rate: 33%
       By plausible
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      posthog-feat-approval-gating
      Solve rate: 22%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      posthog-feat-llma-enable-tagger
      Solve rate: 67%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      posthog-feat-personhog-writer-add
      Solve rate: 0%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      posthog-feat-prompt-versioning
      Solve rate: 56%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      posthog-feat-schema-ingestion-block
      Solve rate: 0%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      posthog-fix-llm-gateway-add
      Solve rate: 0%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      posthog-fix-replay-buffering
      Solve rate: 0%
       By posthog
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      prefect-add-isolated-workspace-resolver
      Solve rate: 0%
       By prefect
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      prefect-feat-dbt-per-node-hardening
      Solve rate: 0%
       By prefect
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      prefect-fix-resolve-race-condition
      Solve rate: 22%
       By prefect
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      prefect-fix-subflow-cancellation
      Solve rate: 0%
       By prefect
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      teleport-add-traits-matching-logic
      Solve rate: 44%
       By teleport
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      teleport-fix-scoped-kube-clusters
      Solve rate: 0%
       By teleport
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Design
      feature
      turborepo-feat-add-circular-package
      Solve rate: 11%
       By turborepo
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      turborepo-fix-preserve-package-json
      Solve rate: 0%
       By turborepo
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      bug
      turborepo-fix-prune-missing-sources
      Solve rate: 0%
       By turborepo
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Investigate
      performance
      turborepo-perf-reuse-input-hashes
      Solve rate: 0%
       By turborepo
      (opens in a new tab)
      (opens in a new tab)
      Show all public tasks

      Realistic vs. over-specified instructions

      For comparison, here are two bug-task instructions from real-world source PRs. Senior SWE-Bench frames bugs as natural-language behavioral reports; SWE-Bench Pro spells out full reproduction steps and expected behavior. Behavioral testing lets the realistic version stay short without sacrificing reliable grading.




      senior-swe-bench/instruction.md

      549 chars
      ~0 code symbols

      1
      it looks like the PG replication slot lag is growing with no bound on prod stacks. the flush LSN we send back to the DB just stops advancing, but all shapes on the stack still seem to be working (clients are getting new data, storage is writing, nothing crashes, etc). Slot lag grows for hours until someone restarts the stack. always seems to start just after a txn whose changes spanned multiple WAL fragments. find why the global flush boundary is getting stuck and fix it. note: the upstream tracker should only see flush acks at txn boundaries.



      swe-bench-pro/instruction.md

      5,888 chars
      ~32 code symbols

      1
      # ImportAPI does not correctly split `publishers` and `publish_places` when the `publisher` field contains multiple locations
      2
      3
      ## Problem
      4
      When importing editions through `/api/import/ia` without a MARC record, if the Internet Archive `publisher` metadata contains several locations separated by `;` and a publisher separated by `:`, the entire string is stored in `publishers` and the `publish_places` field is left empty. In the Open Library data model:
      5
      * `publishers` should hold only the publisher name(s).
      6
      * `publish_places` should list the location(s).
      7
      8
      ## Reproducing the bug
      9
      1. Call the endpoint:
      10
      POST /api/import/ia
      11
      { "identifier": "" }
      12
      2. View the created edition on Open Library.
      13
      14
      * Expected behavior:
      15
      "publishers": ["Berlitz Publishing"],
      16
      "publish_places": ["London", "New York", "Paris"]
      17
      * Actual behavior:
      18
      "publishers": ["London ; New York ; Paris : Berlitz Publishing"]
      19
      // publish_places is missing
      20
      21
      Requirements:
      22
      - The `get_ia_record` function should always return the `publishers` key as a list of strings, whether the original publisher value arrives as a single string or as a list, and should preserve the exact name(s) received.
      23
      - When processing the `isbn` field, `get_ia_record` should classify each value solely by length: 10-character entries go to `isbn_10`, 13-character entries go to `isbn_13`; any other length should be silently discarded, and leading or trailing spaces should be stripped.
      24
      - If the `publisher` value contains at least one `:`, `get_ia_record` should assign everything to the right of the first `:` to the `publishers` list and everything to the left (one or more locations separated by `;`) to `publish_places`, removing square brackets `[]` from both sides and preserving order. This split should be delegated to `openlibrary.plugins.upstream.utils.get_location_and_publisher`, which returns `(publish_places, publishers)`.
      25
      - The helper `get_colon_only_loc_pub` should return a tuple `(location, publisher)` when the input string contains exactly one `:`; if no `:` is present, the location should be an empty string and the entire trimmed input should be considered the publisher; if the input is empty, both elements should be empty strings. This helper should only trim characters listed in `STRIP_CHARS` and should not remove square brackets; its caller may handle bracket removal.
      26
      - `get_location_and_publisher` should return `([], [])` when the input is empty, not a string, or is a list, without raising exceptions in these cases.
      27
      - If the string includes the phrase “Place of publication not identified”, `get_location_and_publisher` should remove that phrase before further processing and then treat the remaining text normally.
      28
      - When the pattern is “location : publisher” and multiple segments are separated by `;`, `get_location_and_publisher` should collect all locations (segments before each `:`) into `publish_places` and each publisher name (segment immediately after each `:`) into `publishers`, maintaining original order. Square brackets `[]` should be removed from both locations and publishers.
      29
      - If a segment contains more than one `:` (an invalid case for the expected pattern), `get_location_and_publisher` should ignore anything after the second `:`, keeping only the first identified `location : publisher` pair extracted so far.
      30
      - When the string contains a comma `,` as the principal separator and lacks a `:`, `get_location_and_publisher` should assume no reliable location information is present and should return an empty locations list, assigning the portion after the comma (after removing square brackets and the unidentified-place phrase) to `publishers`.
      31
      - The utility `get_isbn_10_and_13` in `openlibrary/utils/isbn.py` should accept either a single string or a list of strings, strip any extra spaces, and classify values strictly by length (10 or 13 characters), returning both lists in a tuple; values of other lengths should not appear in the output. The function name should be imported from `openlibrary.utils.isbn` where used (e.g., in `openlibrary/plugins/importapi/code.py`), and should no longer be imported from `openlibrary.plugins.upstream.utils`.
      32
      33
      New interfaces introduced:
      34
      1. Function `get_colon_only_loc_pub` — openlibrary/plugins/upstream/utils.py
      35
      Input: pair (str): a single “Location : Publisher” string.
      36
      Output: (location, publisher) (tuple[str, str]): part before the colon (trimmed with STRIP_CHARS) as location, part after as publisher.
      37
      Splits a simple “Location : Publisher” string into its two components. Returns `("", original_string_trimmed)` if no single colon is found. Leaves square brackets intact for the caller to handle.
      38
      2. Function `get_location_and_publisher` — openlibrary/plugins/upstream/utils.py
      39
      Input: loc_pub (str): an IA publisher metadata string, potentially containing multiple locations separated by `;` and one or more `location : publisher` pairs.
      40
      Output: (locations, publishers) (tuple[list[str], list[str]]): locations (trimmed, brackets removed) from before the colon(s); publishers (trimmed, brackets removed) from after.
      41
      Parses a compound “locations : publisher” string into ordered lists. Handles edge cases (empty/non-string/list input, the phrase “Place of publication not identified”, multiple colons) and falls back to the entire input as a single publisher when no `:` is present.
      42
      3. Function `get_isbn_10_and_13` — openlibrary/utils/isbn.py
      43
      Input: isbns (str | list[str]): an ISBN or list of ISBN strings with no hyphens.
      44
      Output: (isbn_10_list, isbn_13_list) (tuple[list[str], list[str]]): inputs of length 10 and 13 (after trimming).
      45
      Classifies raw ISBN metadata into ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 lists based solely on string length, without validation. Callers should import this from `openlibrary.utils.isbn`.

      Illustrative samples. Senior SWE-Bench instructions read like an issue report on Slack; verifier-driven benchmarks lean on rigid, over-specified reproduction steps. Note: instructions do not represent the same task.

      Comparison to other benchmarks

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

      Benchmark

      Task style and source

      Instruction realism

      Reward mechanisms

      Open source

      Senior SWE-Bench

      Real-world PRs

      High (natural language message)

      • Verifiers (behavioral)
      • Validation agent
      • Task rubrics
      • Taste judge

      Yes

      SWE-Bench Pro

      Real-world PRs

      Low (full specs)

      • Verifiers (implementation-specific)
      • Rubric

      Yes

      DeepSWE

      Invented tasks in real repos

      Mixed (some full specs)

      • Verifiers (behavioral)

      Yes

      FrontierCode

      Real-world PRs

      Unknown (examples are mixed)

      • Verifiers (behavioral)
      • LLM-adapted verifiers
      • Agent-written tests (reverse)
      • Code quality judge

      No

      ProgramBench

      Full program recreation

      —

      • Verifiers (behavioral)

      No

      Methodology

      Metrics

      Pass@1 on the Mini-SWE-Agent harness (Harbor-compatible). Tasteful Solve Rate requires all six gates (verifiers + validation + rubric + bloat + practice + relative taste) to pass simultaneously; Basic Solve Rate removes the taste-related gates and measures correctness only.

      Validation Agent

      For feature tasks, an agent (Mini-SWE-Agent with Claude Sonnet 4.6) writes behavioral tests adapted to each submitted solution using an expert-authored recipe. Each task is calibrated by running 3× on the oracle patch and 3× on no-op, rejected if pass³ < 1 on oracle or pass³ > 0 on no-op. Wall-clock time overhead 6–20% (median 11%); token cost overhead 2–16% (median 6%). Measured on Claude Opus 4.8 trials. In practice, less than 5% of trials are discarded.

      Taste Judge

      A two-judge panel (Claude Sonnet 4.6 + GPT-5.4, averaged) grades each patch against the expert reference solution along two axes: relative code quality (minimality, approach, hygiene, fluency, craftsmanship) and codebase practice alignment (style consistency, pattern adherence, library usage, abstraction level, documentation fit). Thresholds set conservatively (any score > 2/5) and calibrated against human reviewers.

      QUALITY CONTROL

      Every task passes three layers of review: automated LLM-based checks, research-team review for overall design and implementation quality, and SWE-expert review via the Snorkel AI expert network using an extensive rubric. Each task includes a "guided" variant whose instruction adds optional hints (useful for performance diagnosis or curriculum learning) without prescribing the solution.

      Behind the benchmark

      Most software-engineering benchmarks evaluate AI agents like junior engineers — over-specified requirements graded against a fixed test suite. Senior SWE-Bench reframes the problem around the senior-level work deployed coding agents are actually expected to do, sourced from real pull requests across twelve open-source projects.

      Acknowledgments

      Senior SWE-Bench is led by Henry Kiss Ehrenberg with contributions from Vincent Sunn Chen at Snorkel AI; Austin W. Hanjie and Karthik Narasimhan at Princeton University; and Gabriel Orlanski and Frederic Sala at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

      All tasks are created and reviewed by contributing research staff and software engineers from the Snorkel AI expert network, in concert with specialized coding and evaluation agents. The benchmark is open source and Harbor-compatible.

      FAQs

      Get notified when we launch a new benchmark

      Share this benchmark

      More benchmarks

      Enterprise Environments

      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%
      Agentic Coding

      Terminal-Bench 3.0

      Evaluates terminal agents on containerized tasks across seven domains.

      By Resolution Rate
      1
      Image
      Opus 5
      42.7%
      2
      Image
      GPT-5.6 Sol
      34.6%
      3
      Image
      Fable 5
      34.1%
      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
      Opus 5 · high
      36.89%
      3
      Image
      Opus 5 · xhigh
      33.33%
      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.