Archived

SnorkelUnderwrite

An expert-verified frontier benchmark with multi-turn conversations, focused on agentic reasoning and tool use in commercial underwriting settings.
Overview

To date, most agentic and reasoning benchmarks have centered around tasks in the STEM domains. However, in the business world, many problems require domain-specific reasoning and behavior in messier ecosystems that require logic with metadata and tool combinations. To address this gap, we have developed a set of tasks that challenges AI agents in real-world ways, using a complex enterprise domain: commercial insurance underwriting.

The SnorkelUnderwrite benchmark is multi-turn, requiring AI agents to effectively interact with underwriters to help them solve their tasks by not only reasoning over tools, but by also asking the underwriters informative questions.

Leaderboard

Rank Model Score
1 GPT-5.4
91%
2 Claude Opus 4.1
86.3%
3 gpt-5
83.33%
4 Grok 4
83.3%
5 Grok 4 Fast Reasoning
81.33%
6 Grok 3
78%
7 o4 mini
78%
8 Claude Opus 4
77%
9 o3
77%
10 Claude Sonnet 3.7
74.6%
11 Claude Sonnet 4
72.3%
12 gpt-5-mini
71.67%
13 Kimi-K2-Thinking
71.3%
14 GPT-4.1
70.6%
15 Gemini 2.5 Flash
61%
16 Nova Premier
57%
17 Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.3%
18 Nova Pro
52.3%
19 gpt-5-nano
47%
20 Llama 3.3 70B
46.3%
21 Llama 4 Maverick
46.3%
22 Llama 4 Scout
44.3%
23 o3-mini
44.3%
24 Nova Lite
40%
25 Mistral Large
38.3%
26 Codestral
34%
27 Nova Micro
31%
28 gpt-oss-120b
30%
29 Magistral Medium
29.3%
30 Command R+
25.7%
31 Qwen 3 235B
21.3%
32 Llama 3.1 405B
20%
33 Command R
15.3%

Data sample

The trace below shows a sample conversation from the benchmark:
User
Could you guide me toward the correct six-digit NAICS identifier for this company?
Agent
I'll help you find the correct NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code for the company. To do this effectively, I need some information about the company's primary business activities. What is the company's main business or industry?
User
Managing and holding securities of startups.
Agent
I'll help you find the correct NAICS code for a company that manages and holds securities of startups. Let me look at the available tables to find relevant information about NAICS codes.
TOOL USE

{
    "id": "call_E4nhv3uQks1Y9NxXJ0LbcXK",
    "input": {},
    "name": "list_tables",
    "type": "tool_call"
}

Tool :
["appetite_guide", "lobs", "naics", "naics_2012_2017", "naics_2022_2017", "naics_2digit", "small_business_definition", "states", "supply_chain_emissions_statistics"]
Agent
Now let me search for NAICS codes related to managing and holding securities or startups.
TOOL CALL

{
    "id": "call_GiY7wnOMqrcvdRK54X7fHn2",
    "input": {
        "table_name": "naics"
    },
    "name": "get_table_schema",
    ...
}

Tool :
[{'cid': 0, 'name': 'index', 'type': 'INTEGER', 'notnull': 0, 'dflt_value': null, 'pk': 0}, {'cid': 1, 'name': 'Code', 'type': 'INTEGER', 'notnull': 0, 'dflt_value': null, 'pk': 0}, ...]
Agent
Now let me search for NAICS codes related to managing and holding securities of startups.
TOOL USE

{
    "id": "call_o1IyWlKrkxYNCAC2yLqWSzg",
   "input": {
     "query": (
         "SELECT Code, Title, Description "
         "FROM naics "
         "WHERE Title LIKE '%securities%' "
         "OR Title LIKE '%holding%' "
         "OR Title LIKE '%investment%' "
         "OR Description LIKE '%securities%' "
         "OR Description LIKE '%holding%' "
         "OR Description LIKE '%startup%' "
         "ORDER BY Code"
      )
   },
   "name": "read_query",
   "type": "tool_call"
}

Agent

FINAL ANSWER:
523910. The reason is that the company is primarily engaged in managing and holding securities of startups, which aligns with the NAICS code 523910 for “Miscellaneous Intermediation.”…

Dataset

The evaluation dataset is publicly available on Hugging Face. It covers 6 distinct task types related to
small business insurance underwriting, with multi-turn conversational traces grounded in realistic
underwriter workflows.

Methodology

metric
Overall accuracy via LLM-as-a-Judge (GPT 4.1), comparing the agent’s final answer against a programmatically generated reference.
judge agreement
94.5% agreement on a balanced random sample of 200 conversations, validated against human annotations in Snorkel Evaluate.
scope
All traces are scored, including those where agents failed to produce a final answer due to recursion errors or premature termination.
failure rate
Agent failures observed at <1% for closed-source models and 10–30%+ for open-source models.

Behind the benchmark

We built the system in LangGraph with Model Context Protocol (MCP) and ReAct Agents. We engaged with our network of Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters (CPCUs) to create crucial components of the system, with a diverse sample dataset covering 6 distinct types of tasks, all related to applications for insurance by small businesses. Many of the tasks include subtasks involving more nuanced, complex underwriting logic. In each conversation, the underwriter has one of these specific tasks to solve. The tasks require an average of 3–7 steps of reasoning and tool use, with a total of 10–20 conversational turns.

From the blog

Image for Building the benchmark: inside our agentic insurance underwriting dataset

Building the benchmark: inside our agentic insurance underwriting dataset

In this post, we unpack how Snorkel built a realistic benchmark dataset to evaluate AI agents in commercial insurance underwriting....

Resources

Get notified when we launch a new benchmark

Share this benchmark

More benchmarks

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.

Tasteful Solve Rate
1
Image
Claude Fable 5
29.1%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.8
25.0%
3
Image
GPT-5.6 Sol
24.4%
Open Benchmarks Grants

OSWorld 2.0

Long-horizon professional workflows with verifiable outcomes across 55 sub-industries. 147 public tasks of a 1,500+ task corpus, sourced and validated by 300+ industry experts.

By binary accuracy (300 steps)
1
Image
gpt-5-5 · xhigh
13%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.7 · max
13%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 4.6 · medium
8.3%
Open Benchmarks Grants

Agents’ Last Exam

Long-horizon professional workflows with verifiable outcomes across 55 sub-industries. 147 public tasks of a 1,500+ task corpus, sourced and validated by 300+ industry experts.

Top Submissions (Pass Rate)
1
Image
Codex · GPT 5.6-Sol · XHigh
30.6%
2
Image
Codex · GPT 5.6-Sol · High
30.6%
3
Image
Codex · GPT 5.6-Sol · Max
29.6%

Agentic Coding

A benchmark for evaluating AI models on complex, real-world coding tasks that require multi-step reasoning, tool use, and autonomous problem-solving.

Top Models
1
Image
Claude Opus 4.6
65.2%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.5
58.0%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 4.5
57.6%
Open Benchmarks Grants

SlopCode Bench

Measures code quality degradation in AI-assisted codebases. Tracks checkpoint solve rates, erosion (code bloat), and verbosity under realistic repo conditions.

Top Models by Iso Solve
1
Image
GPT-5.5
28.06%
2
Image
GPT-5.3-Codex
26.02%
3
Image
GPT-5.4
23.47%
Open Benchmarks Grants

Continual Learning Bench

Evaluates whether AI systems improve from prior experience across sequential, stateful tasks, measuring real in-context learning, not just raw capability.

Top Systems (Agg. Reward)
1
Image
ICL · Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.223
2
Image
ICL · GPT-5.4
+0.201
3
Image
Claude Code · Sonnet 4.6
+0.190
Open Benchmarks Grants

Terminal-Bench 2.1

Terminal agent evaluation led by Stanford University and Laude Institute. v2.1 fixes 28 tasks from 2.0 and introduces continuous validation.

Top Submissions
1
Image
Codex CLI · GPT-5.5
83.4%
2
Image
Claude Code · Claude 5 Fable
83.1%
3
Image
Terminus 2 · Claude 5 Fable
80.4%
of
 Illution Back
Illution Front

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