It's Not the Capability: Harness Sensitivity Is Non-Monotone Across LLM Agent Tiers
A prevalent assumption in LLM agent deployment holds that more structured harnesses universally improve reliability, and that higher-capability models need proportionally less structural guidance -- together implying a monotone inverse relationship between model capability tier and optimal harness complexity. We test this hypothesis through a controlled 432-run experiment crossing six models across four capability tiers with three harness conditions (light, balanced, strict) on HEAT-24, a 24-task synthetic benchmark with git-based workspace verification. Our results refute the monotone inverse relationship on two fronts. First, for the frontier chat model evaluated (Gemini 2.5 Flash), increased harness verbosity lowers VTSR by 29-38 percentage points -- a harness-complexity paradox. Second, for the frontier reasoning model evaluated (Qwen3.5-122B, extended thinking enabled), strict harness achieves the highest VTSR (91.7%) and the lowest latency, the opposite of the prediction. Within the constrained tier, a 2B model (Gemma4:e2B) matches strong-open-tier stability at 91.7% across all harnesses. Because each tier is represented by a single model in this study, these results should be interpreted as model-specific observations; harness sensitivity appears non-monotone across the models evaluated, and depends critically on model type (chat vs. reasoning). We introduce a six-label failure taxonomy showing that format_violation dominates capable-model failures while wrong_file dominates low-capability failures, and we derive practical tier-aware harness selection guidelines.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Evo-Bench: Can Language Models Improve Agent Harness?
Large Language Models (LLMs) have driven rapid progress in autonomous agents, yet standard evaluations remain confined to static task solving. An emerging frontier is harness evolution---the agent's capacity to autonomou…
JIT-Agent: Scaling Harness Intelligence via Just-in-Time Harness Evolution
Agent capability is not determined by the model alone. The agent harness, encompassing memory management, planning strategy, action protocol, and tool/skill orchestration, can dominate the contribution of the underlying …
Harness Updating Is Not Harness Benefit: Disentangling Evolution Capabilities in Self-Evolving LLM Agents
LLM agents are increasingly deployed as systems built around editable external harnesses, including prompts, skills, memories and tools, that shape task execution without changing model parameters. Harness self-evolution…
Instruction FollowingHarnessOpt-Bench: Evaluating LLMs at Harness Optimization
As LLMs are increasingly deployed within agentic systems, their capabilities depend not only on the model weights but also on the harness: the prompts, tools, control flow, memory, and orchestration code surrounding them…
VeRO: A Harness for Agents to Optimize Agents
An important emerging application of coding agents is agent harness optimization: the iterative improvement of a target agent by editing and evaluating its code. Despite its relevance, the community lacks a systematic un…