Abstract
HarnessDev evaluates agents by measuring their ability to build and iteratively improve execution infrastructure rather than final task outputs, revealing that self-built harnesses vary widely in capability and efficiency and transfer poorly across models.
As agents move from research prototypes to deployed tools, their capability increasingly depends on model-external execution infrastructure, commonly termed the agent harness. Changing this harness while holding model weights fixed can substantially alter task performance. Current agent evaluations typically report downstream performance under a chosen harness, leaving a model's ability to develop the harness itself comparatively underexplored. We introduce HarnessDev, a benchmark that shifts the unit of evaluation from task outputs to runnable infrastructure. HarnessDev covers two stages. In Creation, the agent starts from a minimal seed and a small number of cases, then builds a complete execution system. In Evolution, it starts from its own created harness and iteratively revises it using downstream execution feedback, with the goal of improving benchmark performance. We then evaluate each constructed harness on capability (task success on held-out benchmarks) and efficiency (execution-token cost). The reported Creation results cover six creator LLMs, four domains, and five downstream benchmarks totaling 2,207 unique downstream instances, with hidden evaluation tasks withheld from development. We find that generated harnesses remain substantially behind mature human-engineered references on code and on search and research, while matching or exceeding the selected references on writing and machine-learning experimentation, with large variation in execution cost. Evolution produces some performance gains, but they are unstable and transfer only partially to held-out tasks. Experiments with a fixed runtime model further show that the gains depend strongly on the model executing the harness, indicating limited transfer across models.
Community
We introduce HarnessDev, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLMs can create and iteratively improve the agent harnesses that shape their downstream performance. Across six creator LLMs, four domains, and five benchmarks, generated harnesses show promise but still lag mature human-engineered systems in code, search, and research, while evolution gains are often unstable and dependent on the runtime model. Project page: https://self-developing-agents.github.io/
What makes this work stand out isn’t just another agent benchmark—it targets the engineering-heavy layer everyone relies on but rarely evaluates.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- HarnessOpt-Bench: Evaluating LLMs at Harness Optimization (2026)
- Evo-Bench: Can Language Models Improve Agent Harness? (2026)
- DarwinX: Evolving Agent Harnesses Through Natural Selection (2026)
- MemoHarness: Agent Harnesses That Learn from Experience (2026)
- StarHarness: Evolving Harnesses with Stratified Search for Enterprise Environments (2026)
- OneDayAgent: Towards a Long-Horizon Harness for Autonomous Agents (2026)
- TTHE: Test-Time Harness Evolution (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Someone just dropped a podcast on this paper just now
Check it out on Tensorbrife and listen to the podcast discussion about this paper at: Listen to "Can LLMs Build and Evolve Their Own Agent Infrastructure?" on TensorBrief https://www.tensorbrife.site/podcast/95896511-d24a-41b2-8048-5e5fcb8848ea
Or signup on Tensorbrife at https://tensorbrife.site/
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2609.01437 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper