HackerPapers

arXiv:2610.32285cs.AI

Trial by Trace: Benchmarking AI Agent Harnesses for Reliability and Failure Attribution

Zhiyong Cao, Hengjie Zhu, Yongxin Wang, Xuchen Li, Jintao Li, Shuxia Liu, Dunqiang Liu, Bo Wang, Kairan Zhang, Cong Lin, JiangDi Yu, Siyuan Liu, Sijia Yao, Yi-Liang Wei, Lingxu Ma, Aijia Wang, Anxin Chen, Zixian Wei, Xiang Ruan, Ruizhi Xu, Ruqian Shi, Baihua Xiao, Sicheng Zhou

HN submission. Found in a submission link or body. Submitters do not count as commenters in the main ranking; a submission is not an endorsement.

Abstract

LLM agents are increasingly used to solve real-world problems, and their effectiveness depends on both the underlying models and the harnesses that support their operation. However, most existing benchmarks focus on model capabilities and overall agent performance, with limited attention to the evaluation of agent harnesses. To address this gap, we introduce TraceTrial-Bench, which organizes harness reliability into seven components covering context, execution, governance, lifecycle, observability, tools, and verification. We construct 95 expert-level, mechanism-oriented tasks with executable or state-based ground truth to support semantically equivalent comparisons while preserving the native behavior of each harness. We design a Trajectory Tracing (TT) module to capture agent execution traces and introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separately assesses agent performance and harness reliability. In addition, we design a Multi-source Evidence Acquisition (MEA) module to provide evidence from the agent context, harness, and execution environment for LLM-based evaluation, and develop a Failure Attribution (FA) module that uses explicit mechanism chains to support attribution at the run level. Across 4 harnesses, 9 models, and 95 tasks, our evaluation of 3,420 runs yields macro-averaged harness scores ranging from 59.8% to 72.0%, while 31.1% of runs achieve task success despite failing at least one harness criterion. TraceTrial-Bench provides an auditable and reproducible foundation for comparing agent harnesses, diagnosing their failures, and studying how harness design interacts with model behavior.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Found in 1 HN submission from Nov 2026 to Nov 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments0 threads

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Open submission discussions.

Submitted to Hacker News

  • Show HN: Nomos – A Go harness that stops coding agents from cheating on tests

    Hi HN, Mark here. If you've pointed Claude Code, Cursor, or OpenCode at a codebase you care about and walked away thinking AI coding tools are a net negative, I pretty much agree with you. Left directly on a working branch, models optimize for shutting the compiler up on the current turn. Hit a tricky failure and they delete the failing assertion, return a hardcoded nil/true stub, rewrite the spec to match broken code, dump a 300-line function into the wrong package, or burn $15 of tokens…

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.