Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 95 references

OneDayAgent: Towards a Long-Horizon Harness for Autonomous Agents

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single decompose-memory-verify harness can jointly manage goal drift, state loss, and context overflow in long-horizon everyday agent tasks, reaching 0.821 on AgentIF-OneDay and transferring across five backends.

desk verdict A transparent, open-sourced agent harness worth engaging with, but the 0.821 SOTA claim is thinner than the paper implies because the judge-substitution correction was measured on a different backend and the runs are single-shot. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05013 v1 pith:D7C5Y4MF submitted 2026-08-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HCcs.LGcs.MA

Jingsheng Zheng , Xinyuan Fang , Jintian Zhang , Zhengke Gui , Huajun Chen , Ningyu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.HCcs.LGcs.MA
keywords long-horizonagentstaskdecompositionexecutionmemoryverificationandrepaircross-backendgeneralizationAgentIF-OneDayLLM-as-judgeeverydayautomation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the failures that plague long-horizon everyday agents—goal drift, lost intermediate state, and context overflow—are not separate problems to be solved one at a time, but symptoms of a missing execution structure. OneDayAgent is that structure: it decomposes an open-ended request into bounded subtasks, keeps a compact execution memory as context pressure builds, and runs a global verification-and-repair pass on the final deliverable. On AgentIF-OneDay's 104 tasks, the harness with GLM-5.2 as the backend reaches an overall score of 0.821, which the paper reports as a new state of the art, and the same unchanged harness produces non-trivial scores on four more LLMs from three model families. The significance would be that future agent quality can come from the harness around the model as well as from the model itself.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-part execution harness wrapped around a ReAct loop. Task decomposition converts the request into one to six subtasks executed serially, each with a bounded objective. Execution memory has three layers: summarized truncation of long tool observations, subtask state passing through submitted answers and result-file handles, and automatic context compression that summarizes earlier rounds when context crosses 0.9 times the backend budget. Global verification and repair hold the final deliverable against the original request and the execution trace, then run targeted ReAct-style repair up to three times when defects are found. The subtask boundary is the key state-cutting interface: later subtasks inherit task-level state but not the full low-level trace.

What would settle it

Re-score the stored GLM-5.2 trajectories with the original judge (Gemini-3-Pro-Preview) or with human annotators on the same 767 rubric points. If the adjusted GLM-5.2 score falls at or below 0.799, the claimed state of the art collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single harness can jointly manage the three failure modes of long-horizon everyday agency. The paper reports that on the AgentIF-OneDay benchmark, OneDayAgent with GLM-5.2 scores 0.821 overall, leading across task types (Open Workflow Execution, Latent Instruction Inference, Iterative Refinement), domains, rubric dimensions, and input-attachment settings, and outperforming the official baselines including AutoClaw at 0.799. The same harness applied verbatim to Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, Qwen3.6-27B, and Qwen3.5-9B gives scores from 0.613 to 0.743, with all backends completing all 104 tasks. The paper interprets this as evidence that the harness is a transferable layer, with backend choice showing up as execution style—latency, tool calls, and repair rate—rather than as catastrophic failure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automated scoring model's 3.12-point strictness gap, measured on a single Gemini-backend run, transfers unchanged to the single GLM-5.2 run; if the judge gap does not transfer, the claimed 0.821 versus 0.799 state-of-the-art comparison is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Goal drift, state loss, and context overflow can be handled by one harness rather than by three separate fixes.
  • Agent quality on long-horizon everyday tasks depends on the surrounding harness as well as on the backend model, since the same harness lifts scores across five backends.
  • Backend differences surface as execution style—latency, tool-call volume, and repair rate—so cross-backend comparisons should report behavior, not just final score.
  • A verification-only configuration reaches nearly the same score as decomposition-only at a fraction of the latency, so cost-quality tradeoffs can be tuned by module composition.
  • Context compression keeps long trajectories feasible without a visible score penalty on this benchmark, although the paper does not claim causation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transferability result holds, harnesses of this kind are orthogonal to backend progress: stronger models should compound with the harness rather than require it to be redesigned.
  • The state-of-the-art comparison should be re-checked with the original judging model or human annotations on the GLM-5.2 trajectories, because the 3.12-point judge gap was measured on a Gemini-backend run.
  • The ablation's overlapping gains suggest that a per-task module selector might beat the always-on full harness at lower cost.
  • The security appendix implies a deployment ceiling: without workspace isolation, prompt injection and arbitrary command execution make the current implementation risky for untrusted inputs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents OneDayAgent, a harness for long-horizon everyday agent tasks that combines task decomposition, execution memory (subtask state passing and context compression), and global verification/repair over a unified tool interface. On the AgentIF-OneDay benchmark (104 tasks), with the GLM-5.2 backend, it reports an overall score of 0.821, which the authors call a new state of the art, and reports that the same harness runs across five backend LLMs from three model families without backend-specific tuning. The paper includes ablations of decomposition and verification, execution-behavior analyses, a case study, and releases code and trajectories.

Significance. If the result holds, the contribution is a reusable harness architecture that jointly targets goal drift, state loss, and context overflow, with evidence that backend LLMs can be swapped without harness modification. The paper is transparent in releasing code and trajectories, includes a security appendix, and provides a detailed judge-comparison appendix, all of which are strengths. However, the headline state-of-the-art claim currently rests on a single-run, cross-judge comparison that is not fully validated, and all headline numbers are single-run point estimates; the significance is therefore conditional on additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.2, Table 2, Appendix F] The headline comparison (0.821 vs AutoClaw 0.799) is confounded by judge substitution: the GLM-5.2 and Codex runs are scored with Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, while the official baselines, including AutoClaw, were scored with Gemini-3-Pro-Preview. Appendix F reports a single paired comparison on a March Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview backend run showing a 3.12-point drop, and the manuscript generalizes this to claim that all OneDayAgent scores are conservative relative to baselines. That transfer is not established. Table 8 shows that the judge disagreements are criterion-specific and bidirectional (e.g., taskif_90 is scored more leniently by the new judge), so the net gap depends on the distribution of agent outputs; GLM-5.2's execution profile (53.6 minutes, 51.6 tool calls, 585.7 KB context per task) differs markedly from the March Gemini run. Because the GLM-5.2 run was never re-scored with the original judge and no human validation of OneDayAgent runs is reported, the 0.022 margin over AutoClaw may not be a valid state-of-the-art claim. Please provide a judge-sensitivity analysis on the actual GLM-5.2 outputs, or re-score with the original judge or human annotations on a sample.
  2. [§3.2, Table 2; §3.3, Table 3] All reported scores are single-run point estimates at temperature 1.0 with no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests. The differences that support the main claims—FULL (0.821) vs DIRECT (0.771), and OneDayAgent vs AutoClaw (0.022)—could be within run-to-run stochasticity for this kind of long-horizon agent evaluation. Please report multiple seeds, bootstrap intervals, or at minimum a variance estimate, and state the number of runs per configuration; without this, the ablation ordering and the SOTA margin cannot be assessed.
  3. [§3.3, Table 3] Execution memory is never ablated: the paper states that disabling it causes context overflow or state loss that prevents task completion, but no quantitative evidence is provided. Since the central contribution is that a single harness jointly manages goal drift, state loss, and context overflow, the contribution of the memory module is asserted rather than demonstrated. Please include a memory-degraded variant (e.g., no context compression, no subtask state passing, or a limited-memory baseline) with at least failure counts or scores, or explicitly report why this variant cannot be run.
  4. [§2.2, Appendix B Table 6, §3.5] The harness configuration includes several free parameters (max_subtasks, context_compression_threshold, repair_attempts_after_failed_verify, subtask_retries, temperature) that appear to be hand-set, possibly on the same AgentIF-OneDay benchmark. The cross-backend claim is that the harness transfers without tuning across backends, but if these values were tuned on the evaluation benchmark, the generalization claim is weakened. Please state how these parameters were selected, whether a development/validation split was used, and whether the same values were fixed before any backend results were computed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.2] The text says 'Full configuration is in Appendix 6,' but the configuration table appears in Appendix B as Table 6; please fix the cross-reference.
  2. [§3.4, Figure 3(a)] The text says 'only 16 of 104 tasks executed as one subtask,' while Figure 3(a) shows 15 tasks in the 1-subtask bar, and the displayed counts sum to 97 rather than 104; please reconcile the numbers.
  3. [Table 3] The table header is difficult to read ('Overall ΔDirect Lat. (min) Tools Repair Score/Lat. Perfect Zero Better Full') and the DIRECT row appears garbled ('2.8052 9 12'); please reformat the table with clear column separators.
  4. [Figure 3(f)] The panel title 'Score is Independent of Compression Count' overstates the evidence, since the reported correlation is r = −0.034 and the text appropriately notes that 'causal isolation is left to future work'; consider a more neutral title.
  5. [Appendix F] The paired-comparison description reports a 3.12-point drop but does not state the number of tasks or the distribution of per-task score changes; adding these would make the magnitude interpretable.
  6. [§3.1.2 and Appendix F] The timeline is inconsistent: §3.1.2 says the original judge was unavailable in June 2026, while Appendix F refers to 'the final July experiments'; please align the dates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline 0.821 score is an external benchmark measurement, not a quantity defined by the paper's own modules.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical evaluation on AgentIF-OneDay, an external benchmark scored by the official AgentIF-OneDay LLM-as-judge framework. The target quantity (overall score 0.821) is not defined in terms of any OneDayAgent component, and no fitted parameter is used to construct it. The internal verifier is a separate module used for repair at execution time; it is not the scoring judge, so the reported result is not equivalent to the paper's own verification output by construction. The judge-substitution discussion in Section 3.1.2 and Appendix F is a measurement-validity concern (a 3.12-point gap measured on one run, extrapolated to another backend), not a circularity: the claim that scores are conservative is an empirical inference, not a definitional identity. Hyperparameters such as the 0.9x compression threshold and up-to-6 subtasks were hand-set, which is tuning rather than circular reasoning. Self-citations exist (e.g., LightMem [18] in related work) but they are not load-bearing for the headline result, which is judged by an external benchmark and by baselines from the official AgentIF-OneDay release. No self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain pattern is present, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its central claim depends on the AgentIF-OneDay benchmark, a substituted LLM judge, and hand-set harness parameters, all of which are disclosed but not fully stress-tested.

free parameters (5)
  • max_subtasks = 6
    Hand-set upper bound on planner decomposition; affects cost and score, with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • context_compression_threshold = 0.9 x backend context budget
    Hand-set trigger for LLM summarization of history; directly affects memory behavior and measured outcomes.
  • repair_attempts_after_failed_verify = 3
    Hand-set limit on global repair loops; influences the final score.
  • subtask_retries = 3 total attempts
    Hand-set failure recovery policy for subtasks; affects completion rate and latency.
  • temperature = 1.0
    Sampling temperature for the backend LLM; affects run-to-run variability, but only one run is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AgentIF-OneDay LLM-as-judge scores, with Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview substituted for the original judge, validly measure task-level instruction following.
    The SOTA claim rests on these scores. Section 3.1.2 and Appendix F describe the substitution and a 3.12-point paired gap, but no human validation is reported for OneDayAgent runs.
  • domain assumption Single-run evaluation at temperature 1.0 is representative of harness performance.
    All reported scores are point estimates from one rollout per task and variant; no repeated seeds or confidence intervals are given, yet the paper compares 0.821 against baselines.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3.12-point judge gap measured on a Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview backend in March transfers to the GLM-5.2 July run.
    Used to argue that reported scores are conservative relative to official baselines; the transfer across backends is assumed, not measured.
  • domain assumption Harness hyperparameters chosen for the main run are not substantially overfit to AgentIF-OneDay.
    Configuration values in Appendix Table 6 are fixed by the authors; the paper does not report validation-based selection or sensitivity analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OneDayAgent: Towards a Long-Horizon Harness for Autonomous Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7C5Y4MF

@misc{pith2026260805013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OneDayAgent: Towards a Long-Horizon Harness for Autonomous Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7C5Y4MF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05013}
}
read the original abstract

LLM agents are increasingly applied to open-ended everyday requests that span work, study, and life. These tasks are long-horizon, cross-environment, and multimodal, forcing the agent to preserve goals and constraints across many steps while navigating heterogeneous tools and attachments. While prior work has addressed individual failure modes such as goals drift, states loss, and context overflow, whether a single harness can manage them jointly and remain effective across backends has received less study. We present OneDayAgent, a long-horizon harness for autonomous agents. OneDayAgent turns an open-ended request into a managed execution process that decomposes tasks into bounded subtasks, maintains execution memory under context pressure, and verifies and repairs the final deliverable. We evaluate OneDayAgent on AgentIF-OneDay across 104 tasks. With the GLM-5.2 backend, OneDayAgent sets a new state of the art with an overall score of 0.821. The same harness runs across five backend LLMs from three model families, indicating the harness generalizes across backends without tuning, even as different models induce distinct execution styles under the same workflow.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    From llm reasoning to autonomous ai agents: A comprehensive review, 2026

    Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Norbert Tihanyi, and Merouane Debbah. From llm reasoning to autonomous ai agents: A comprehensive review, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19678

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Llm-based agentic systems for software engineering: Challenges and opportunities,

    Yongjian Tang and Thomas Runkler. Llm-based agentic systems for software engineering: Challenges and opportunities,

  3. [3]

    Sager, Benjamin Meyer, Peng Yan, Rebekka Von Wartburg-Kottler, Layan Etaiwi, Aref Enayati, Gabriel Nobel, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Benjamin F

    Pascal J. Sager, Benjamin Meyer, Peng Yan, Rebekka Von Wartburg-Kottler, Layan Etaiwi, Aref Enayati, Gabriel Nobel, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Benjamin F. Grewe, and Thilo Stadelmann. A comprehensive survey of agents for computer use: Foundations, challenges, and future directions.Journal of Artificial IntelligenceResearch, 85, March 2026. ISSN 1076-9757. doi: 10....

    doi:10.1613/jair.1.19490 2026

  4. [4]

    Deep research of deep research: From transformer to agent, from ai to ai for science, 2026

    Yipeng Yu. Deep research of deep research: From transformer to agent, from ai to ai for science, 2026. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2603.28361

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22680

    YueXu,QianChen,ZizhanMa,DongruiLiu,WenxuanWang,XitingWang,LiXiong,andWenjieWang.Towardpersonalized llm-powered agents: Foundations, evaluation, and future directions, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22680. 11 OneDayAgent Technical Report Zhejiang University & Ant Group

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Agentif-oneday: A task-level instruction-following benchmark for general ai agents in daily scenarios, 2026

    Kaiyuan Chen, Qimin Wu, Taiyu Hou, Tianhao Tang, Xueyu Hu, Yuchen Hou, Bikun Li, Chengming Qian, Guoyin Wang, Haolin Chen, Haotong Tian, Haoye Zhang, Haoyu Bian, Hongbing Pan, Hongkang Zhang, Hongyi Zhou, Jiaqi Cai, Jiewu Rao, Jiyuan Ren, Keduan Huang, Lucia Zhu Huang, Mingyu Yuan, Naixu Guo, Qicheng Tang, Qinyan Zhang, Shuai Chen, Siheng Chen, Ting Ting ...

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Glm-5: from vibe coding to agentic engineering, 2026

    GLM-5 Team et al. Glm-5: from vibe coding to agentic engineering, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15763

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2023

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629

    arXiv 2023

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    A subgoal-driven framework for improving long-horizon llm agents, 2026

    Taiyi Wang, Sian Gooding, Florian Hartmann, Oriana Riva, and Edward Grefenstette. A subgoal-driven framework for improving long-horizon llm agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19685

    2026

  2. [10]

    Hipif: Hierarchical planning and information folding for long-horizon llm agent learning, 2026

    Juncheng Diao, Zhicong Lu, Peiguang Li, Yongwei Zhou, Changyuan Tian, Qingbin Li, Rongxiang Weng, Jingang Wang, and Xunliang Cai. Hipif: Hierarchical planning and information folding for long-horizon llm agent learning, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10507

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13854

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback, 2023

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterativ...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Marco deepresearch: Unlocking efficient deep research agents via verification-centric design, 2026

    Bin Zhu, Qianghuai Jia, Tian Lan, Junyang Ren, Feng Gu, Feihu Jiang, Longyue Wang, Zhao Xu, and Weihua Luo. Marco deepresearch: Unlocking efficient deep research agents via verification-centric design, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2603.28376

    2026

  7. [15]

    Agentfixer: From failure detection to fix recommendations in llm agentic systems, 2026

    Hadar Mulian, Sergey Zeltyn, Ido Levy, Liane Galanti, Avi Yaeli, and Segev Shlomov. Agentfixer: From failure detection to fix recommendations in llm agentic systems, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29848

    2026

  8. [16]

    Agent memory: Characterization and system implications of stateful long-horizon workloads, 2026

    Yasmine Omri, Ziyu Gan, Zachary Broveak, Robin Geens, Zexue He, Alex Pentland, Marian Verhelst, Tsachy Weissman, and Thierry Tambe. Agent memory: Characterization and system implications of stateful long-horizon workloads, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.06448

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Wujiang Xu, Yu Wang, Kai Mei, Kaiqu Liang, Zhenting Wang, Mingyu Jin, Han Zhang, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Wenyue Hua, Sambit Sahu, and Dimitris N. Metaxas. Memgym: a long-horizon memory environment for llm agents, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20833

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lightmem: Lightweight and efficient memory-augmented generation

    Jizhan Fang, Xinle Deng, Haoming Xu, Ziyan Jiang, Yuqi Tang, Ziwen Xu, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Mengru Wang, Shuofei Qiao, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Lightmem: Lightweight and efficient memory-augmented generation. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Rep...

    2026

  11. [19]

    Gemini 3.1 pro model card, 2026

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.1 pro model card, 2026. URL https://deepmind.google/models/model-cards/ gemini-3-1-pro/

    2026

  12. [20]

    Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026. URLhttps://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5

    2026

  13. [21]

    Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-level coding in a 27B dense model, April 2026

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-level coding in a 27B dense model, April 2026. URLhttps://qwen.ai/blog?id= qwen3.6-27b

    2026

  14. [22]

    Gpt-5.5 system card

    OpenAI. Gpt-5.5 system card. Technical report, OpenAI, April 2026. URLhttps://deploymentsafety.openai.com/ gpt-5-5/gpt-5-5.pdf. 12 OneDayAgent Technical Report Zhejiang University & Ant Group

    2026

  15. [23]

    Gemini 3 pro model card, 2026

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3 pro model card, 2026. URL https://deepmind.google/models/model-cards/ gemini-3-pro/

    2026

  16. [24]

    Towards a standard, enterprise-relevant agentic ai benchmark: Lessons from 5.5 billion tokens’ worth of agentic ai evaluations, 2025

    JV Roig. Towards a standard, enterprise-relevant agentic ai benchmark: Lessons from 5.5 billion tokens’ worth of agentic ai evaluations, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08042

    2025

  17. [25]

    Agentif: Benchmarking instruction following of large language models in agentic scenarios, 2025

    Yunjia Qi, Hao Peng, Xiaozhi Wang, Amy Xin, Youfeng Liu, Bin Xu, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. Agentif: Benchmarking instruction following of large language models in agentic scenarios, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16944

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yu, and Ming Zhang

    Junyu Luo, Weizhi Zhang, Ye Yuan, Yusheng Zhao, Junwei Yang, Yiyang Gu, Bohan Wu, Binqi Chen, Ziyue Qiao, Qingqing Long, Rongcheng Tu, Xiao Luo, Wei Ju, Zhiping Xiao, Yifan Wang, Meng Xiao, Chenwu Liu, Jingyang Yuan, Shichang Zhang, Yiqiao Jin, Fan Zhang, Xian Wu, Hanqing Zhao...

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Agentic large language models, a survey.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 84, December 2025

    Aske Plaat, Max Van Duijn, Niki Van Stein, Mike Preuss, Peter Van der Putten, and Kees Joost Batenburg. Agentic large language models, a survey.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 84, December 2025. ISSN 1076-9757. doi: 10.1613/jair.1.18675. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.161...

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    R., and Rajkumar Buyya

    Arunkumar V, Gangadharan G. R., and Rajkumar Buyya. Agentic artificial intelligence (ai): Architectures, taxonomies, and evaluation of large language model agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12560

    2026

  21. [29]

    Agentic tool use in large language models, 2026

    Jinchao Hu, Meizhi Zhong, Kehai Chen, Xuefeng Bai, and Min Zhang. Agentic tool use in large language models, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00835

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Generalizability of large language model-based agents: A comprehensive survey, 2025

    Minxing Zhang, Yi Yang, Roy Xie, Bhuwan Dhingra, Shuyan Zhou, and Jian Pei. Generalizability of large language model-based agents: A comprehensive survey, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16330

    2025

  23. [31]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation, 2023

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation, 2023. URLhttps:...

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Websailor- v2: Bridging the chasm to proprietary agents via synthetic data and scalable reinforcement learning, 2025

    Kuan Li, Zhongwang Zhang, Huifeng Yin, Rui Ye, Yida Zhao, Liwen Zhang, Litu Ou, Dingchu Zhang, Xixi Wu, Jialong Wu, Xinyu Wang, Zile Qiao, Zhen Zhang, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou. Websailor- v2: Bridging the chasm to proprietary agents via synthetic da...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Agent s2: A compositional generalist- specialist framework for computer use agents, 2025

    Saaket Agashe, Kyle Wong, Vincent Tu, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, and Xin Eric Wang. Agent s2: A compositional generalist- specialist framework for computer use agents, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00906

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    AlexanderNovikov,NgânV ˜u,MarvinEisenberger,EmilienDupont,Po-SenHuang,AdamZsoltWagner,SergeyShirobokov, Borislav Kozlovskii, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Abbas Mehrabian, M. Pawan Kumar, Abigail See, Swarat Chaudhuri, George Holland, Alex Davies, Sebastian Nowozin, Pushmeet Kohli, an...

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Contextcov: Deriving and enforcing executable constraints from agent instruction files, 2026

    Reshabh K Sharma. Contextcov: Deriving and enforcing executable constraints from agent instruction files, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00822

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Richard Yu

    Yulin Peng, Haowen Hou, Xinxin Zhu, Ying Tiffany He, and F. Richard Yu. Semag: Self-evolutionary multi-agent code generation, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15707

    2026

  29. [37]

    Webresearcher: Unleashing unbounded reasoning capability in long-horizon agents, 2025

    Zile Qiao, Guoxin Chen, Xuanzhong Chen, Donglei Yu, Wenbiao Yin, Xinyu Wang, Zhen Zhang, Baixuan Li, Huifeng Yin, Kuan Li, Rui Min, Minpeng Liao, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou. Webresearcher: Unleashing unbounded reasoning capability in long-horizon agen...

    2025

  30. [38]

    MiroMind Team, S. Bai, L. Bing, L. Lei, R. Li, X. Li, X. Lin, E. Min, L. Su, B. Wang, L. Wang, L. Wang, S. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, G. Chen, L. Chen, Z. Cheng, Y. Deng, Z. Huang, D. Ng, J. Ni, Q. Ren, X. Tang, B. L. Wang, H. Wang, N. Wang, C. Wei, Q. Wu, J. Xia, Y. X...

    2026

  31. [39]

    Can we predict before executing machine learning agents?, 2026

    Jingsheng Zheng, Jintian Zhang, Yujie Luo, Yuren Mao, Yunjun Gao, Lun Du, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Can we predict before executing machine learning agents?, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05930. 13 OneDayAgent Technical Report Zhejiang University & Ant Group

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Agentrl: Scaling agentic reinforcement learning with a multi-turn, multi-task framework, 2025

    Hanchen Zhang, Xiao Liu, Bowen Lv, Xueqiao Sun, Bohao Jing, Iat Long Iong, Zhenyu Hou, Zehan Qi, Hanyu Lai, Yifan Xu, Rui Lu, Hongning Wang, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. Agentrl: Scaling agentic reinforcement learning with a multi-turn, multi-task framework, 2025. URLhttps://arx...

    2025

  33. [41]

    Temp-r1: A unified autonomous agent for complex temporal kgqa via reverse curriculum reinforcement learning, 2026

    Zhaoyan Gong, Zhiqiang Liu, Songze Li, Xiaoke Guo, Yuanxiang Liu, Xinle Deng, Zhizhen Liu, Lei Liang, Huajun Chen, and Wen Zhang. Temp-r1: A unified autonomous agent for complex temporal kgqa via reverse curriculum reinforcement learning, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18296

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Webchorearena: Evaluating web browsing agents on realistic tedious web tasks, 2025

    Atsuyuki Miyai, Zaiying Zhao, Kazuki Egashira, Atsuki Sato, Tatsumi Sunada, Shota Onohara, Hiromasa Yamanishi, Mashiro Toyooka, Kunato Nishina, Ryoma Maeda, Kiyoharu Aizawa, and Toshihiko Yamasaki. Webchorearena: Evaluating web browsing agents on realistic tedious web tasks, 2...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Osworld2.0: Benchmarkingcomputeruseagentsonlong-horizonreal-worldtasks,2026

    MengqiYuan,ZilongZhou,XinzhuangXiong,WeimingWu,JiayangSun,JiaminSong,KaiqianCui,BowenWang,Haoyuan Wu, Yitong Li, Dunjie Lu, Haikong Lu, Qi Zhen, Xinyuan Wang, Jiaqi Deng, Yuhao Yang, Cheng Chen, Boyuan Zheng, Alex Su, Xiao Yu, Hao Zou, Saaket Agashe, Xing Han Lu, Manpreet Kaur...

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Windowsworld: A process-centric benchmark of autonomous gui agents in professional cross-application environments, 2026

    Jinchao Li, Yunxin Li, Chenrui Zhao, Zhenran Xu, Baotian Hu, and Min Zhang. Windowsworld: A process-centric benchmark of autonomous gui agents in professional cross-application environments, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2604.27776

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mobileworld: Benchmarking autonomous mobile agents in agent-user interactive and mcp-augmented environments, 2025

    Quyu Kong, Xu Zhang, Zhenyu Yang, Nolan Gao, Chen Liu, Panrong Tong, Chenglin Cai, Hanzhang Zhou, Jianan Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Zhidan Liu, Steven Hoi, and Yue Wang. Mobileworld: Benchmarking autonomous mobile agents in agent-user interactive and mcp-augmented environments, 2025...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Swe-bench pro: Can ai agents solve long-horizon software engineering tasks?, 2025

    Xiang Deng, Jeff Da, Edwin Pan, Yannis Yiming He, Charles Ide, Kanak Garg, Niklas Lauffer, Andrew Park, Nitin Pasari, Chetan Rane, Karmini Sampath, Maya Krishnan, Srivatsa Kundurthy, Sean Hendryx, Zifan Wang, Vijay Bharadwaj, Jeff Holm, Raja Aluri, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Noah Ja...

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Deepswe v1.1: a cleaner, more reproducible benchmark for frontier coding agents, 2026

    Wenqi Huang and Peter Jiang. Deepswe v1.1: a cleaner, more reproducible benchmark for frontier coding agents, 2026. URLhttps://github.com/datacurve-ai/deep-swe

    2026

  40. [48]

    Browsecomp: A simple yet challenging benchmark for browsing agents, 2025

    Jason Wei, Zhiqing Sun, Spencer Papay, Scott McKinney, Jeffrey Han, Isa Fulford, Hyung Won Chung, Alex Tachard Passos, William Fedus, and Amelia Glaese. Browsecomp: A simple yet challenging benchmark for browsing agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12516

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Deepresearch bench: A comprehensive benchmark for deep research agents, 2025

    Mingxuan Du, Benfeng Xu, Chiwei Zhu, Xiaorui Wang, and Zhendong Mao. Deepresearch bench: A comprehensive benchmark for deep research agents, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11763

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982

    Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan.𝜏2-bench: Evaluating conversational agents in a dual-control environment, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A benchmark of expert-level academic questions to assess ai capabilities

    Long Phan et al. A benchmark of expert-level academic questions to assess ai capabilities. Nature, 649(8099): 1139–1146, January 2026. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09962-4. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-025-09962-4

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    MarkChen, JerryTworek, HeewooJun, QimingYuan, HenriquePondedeOliveiraPinto, JaredKaplan, HarriEdwards, Yuri Burda,NicholasJoseph,GregBrockman,AlexRay,RaulPuri,GretchenKrueger,MichaelPetrov,HeidyKhlaaf,GirishSastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail P...

  45. [53]

    From question answering to task completion: A survey on agent system and harness design, 2026

    Jianyuan Guo, Zhiwei Hao, Chengcheng Wang, Cheng Fan, Tingzhang Luo, Hongguang Li, Ying Gao, Hefei Mei, Jiankun Peng, Rongjian Xu, Minjing Dong, Han Wu, Mengyu Zheng, Kai Han, Shiqi Wang, Chang Xu, and Yunhe Wang. From question answering to task completion: A survey on agent s...

    2026 arXiv

  46. [54]

    The tool decathlon: Benchmarking language agents for diverse, realistic, and long-horizon task execution, 2026

    Junlong Li, Wenshuo Zhao, Jian Zhao, Weihao Zeng, Haoze Wu, Xiaochen Wang, Rui Ge, Yuxuan Cao, Yuzhen Huang, Wei Liu, Junteng Liu, Zhaochen Su, Yiyang Guo, Fan Zhou, Lueyang Zhang, Juan Michelini, Xingyao Wang, Xiang Yue, Shuyan Zhou, Graham Neubig, and Junxian He. The tool de...

    2026

  47. [55]

    Lifesim: Long-horizon user life simulator for personalized assistant evaluation, 2026

    Feiyu Duan, Xuanjing Huang, and Zhongyu Wei. Lifesim: Long-horizon user life simulator for personalized assistant evaluation, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12152

    2026

  48. [56]

    Agencybench: Benchmarking the frontiers of autonomous agents in 1m-token real-world contexts, 2026

    Keyu Li, Junhao Shi, Yang Xiao, Mohan Jiang, Jie Sun, Yunze Wu, Dayuan Fu, Shijie Xia, Xiaojie Cai, Tianze Xu, Weiye Si, Wenjie Li, Dequan Wang, and Pengfei Liu. Agencybench: Benchmarking the frontiers of autonomous agents in 1m-token real-world contexts, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv...

    2026 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Odysseyarena: Benchmarking large language models for long-horizon, active and inductive interactions, 2026

    Hang Yan, Fangzhi Xu, Qiushi Sun, Jinyang Wu, Zixian Huang, Muye Huang, Jingyang Gong, Zichen Ding, Kanzhi Cheng, Yian Wang, Xinyu Che, Zeyi Sun, Jian Zhang, Zhangyue Yin, Haoran Luo, Ben Kao, and Qika Lin. Odysseyarena: Benchmarking large language models for long-horizon, act...

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Weavebench: A long-horizon, real-worldbenchmarkforcomputer-useagentswithhybridinterfaces,2026

    Wanli Li, Bowen Zhou, Yunyao Yu, Zhou Xu, Yifan Yang, Dongsheng Li, and Caihua Shan. Weavebench: A long-horizon, real-worldbenchmarkforcomputer-useagentswithhybridinterfaces,2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09426

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Workspace-bench 1.0: Benchmarking ai agents on workspace tasks with large-scale file dependencies, 2026

    Zirui Tang, Xuanhe Zhou, Yumou Liu, Linchun Li, Yukai Wu, Weizheng Wang, Hongzhang Huang, Wei Zhou, Jun Zhou, Jiachen Song, Shaoli Yu, Jinqi Wang, Zihang Zhou, Hongyi Zhou, Yuting Lv, Jinyang Li, Jiashuo Liu, Ruoyu Chen, Chunwei Liu, GuoLiang Li, Jihua Kang, and Fan Wu. Worksp...

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Merrill et al

    Mike A. Merrill et al. Terminal-bench: Benchmarking agents on hard, realistic tasks in command line interfaces, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11868

    2026 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Deepplanning: Benchmarking long-horizon agentic planning with verifiable constraints, 2026

    Yinger Zhang, Shutong Jiang, Renhao Li, Jianhong Tu, Yang Su, Lianghao Deng, Xudong Guo, Chenxu Lv, and Junyang Lin. Deepplanning: Benchmarking long-horizon agentic planning with verifiable constraints, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2601.18137

    2026

  54. [62]

    Trip-bench: A benchmark for long-horizon interactive agents in real-world scenarios, 2026

    Yuanzhe Shen, Zisu Huang, Zhengyuan Wang, Muzhao Tian, Zhengkang Guo, Chenyang Zhang, Shuaiyu Zhou, Zengjie Hu, Dailin Li, Jingwen Xu, Kaimin Wang, Wenhao Liu, Tianlong Li, Fengpeng Yue, Feng Hong, Cao Liu, and Ke Zeng. Trip-bench: A benchmark for long-horizon interactive agen...

    2026

  55. [63]

    Planbench-xl: Evaluating long-horizon planning of llm tool-use agents in large-scale tool ecosystems, 2026

    Jiayu Liu, Qihan Lin, Cheng Qian, Rui Wang, Emre Can Acikgoz, Xiaocheng Yang, Jiateng Liu, Zhenhailong Wang, Xiusi Chen, Heng Ji, and Dilek Hakkani-Tür. Planbench-xl: Evaluating long-horizon planning of llm tool-use agents in large-scale tool ecosystems, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv...

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Polyworkbench: Benchmarking multilingual long-horizon llm agents, 2026

    Hongliang Li, Yijin Liu, Zhiwei Zhang, Zihe Liu, Xinyue Lou, Jinan Xu, Fandong Meng, and Kaiyu Huang. Polyworkbench: Benchmarking multilingual long-horizon llm agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06008

    2026 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Retailbench: Evaluating long-horizon autonomous decision- making and strategy stability of llm agents in realistic retail environments, 2026

    Linghua Zhang, Jun Wang, Jingtong Wu, and Zhisong Zhang. Retailbench: Evaluating long-horizon autonomous decision- making and strategy stability of llm agents in realistic retail environments, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603. 16453

    2026

  58. [66]

    Ai harness engineering: A runtime substrate for foundation-model software agents, 2026

    Hailin Zhong and Shengxin Zhu. Ai harness engineering: A runtime substrate for foundation-model software agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13357

    2026 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Pysklo, Artem Zhuravel, and Patrick D

    Hubert M. Pysklo, Artem Zhuravel, and Patrick D. Watson. Agent-diff: Benchmarking llm agents on enterprise api tasks via code execution with state-diff-based evaluation, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11224

    2026 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Scaling long-horizon llm agent via context-folding, 2025

    Weiwei Sun, Miao Lu, Zhan Ling, Kang Liu, Xuesong Yao, Yiming Yang, and Jiecao Chen. Scaling long-horizon llm agent via context-folding, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11967

    2025

  62. [70]

    Dynamiclongcontextreasoningovercompressed memory via end-to-end reinforcement learning, 2026

    ZhuoenChen,DongfangLi,MeishanZhang,BaotianHu,andMinZhang. Dynamiclongcontextreasoningovercompressed memory via end-to-end reinforcement learning, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.08382. 15 OneDayAgent Technical Report Zhejiang University & Ant Group

    2026

  63. [71]

    A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents,

    Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents,

  64. [72]

    Wei-Chieh Huang, Weizhi Zhang, Yueqing Liang, Yuanchen Bei, Yankai Chen, Tao Feng, Xinyu Pan, Zhen Tan, Yu Wang, TianxinWei,ShanglinWu,RuiyaoXu,LiangweiYang,RuiYang,WooseongYang,Chin-YuanYeh,HanrongZhang,Haozhen Zhang, Siqi Zhu, Henry Peng Zou, Wanjia Zhao, Song Wang, Wujiang ...

    2026

  65. [73]

    Memory as action: Autonomous context curation for long-horizon agentic tasks, 2026

    Yuxiang Zhang, Jiangming Shu, Ye Ma, Xueyuan Lin, Shangxi Wu, and Jitao Sang. Memory as action: Autonomous context curation for long-horizon agentic tasks, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12635

    2026 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Context collapse in long-horizon agents: Benchmarking hierarchical memory against rag and summarization

    Ebaad Raheem, Danish Naseer, and Ghulam Mustafa. Context collapse in long-horizon agents: Benchmarking hierarchical memory against rag and summarization. 2026

    2026

  67. [75]

    Infiagent: An infinite-horizon framework for general-purpose autonomous agents, 2026

    Chenglin Yu, Yuchen Wang, Songmiao Wang, Hongxia Yang, and Ming Li. Infiagent: An infinite-horizon framework for general-purpose autonomous agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03204

    2026

  68. [76]

    The long-horizon task mirage? diagnosing where and why agentic systems break, 2026

    Xinyu Jessica Wang, Haoyue Bai, Yiyou Sun, Haorui Wang, Shuibai Zhang, Wenjie Hu, Mya Schroder, Bilge Mutlu, Dawn Song, and Robert D Nowak. The long-horizon task mirage? diagnosing where and why agentic systems break, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11978

    2026 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Agentlab: Benchmarking llm agents against long-horizon attacks, 2026

    Tanqiu Jiang, Yuhui Wang, Jiacheng Liang, and Ting Wang. Agentlab: Benchmarking llm agents against long-horizon attacks, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16901

    2026

  70. [78]

    Mcp-atlas: A large-scale benchmark for tool-use competency with real mcp servers, 2026

    Chaithanya Bandi, Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru, Ben Hertzberg, Divyansh Agarwal, Geobio Boo, Tejas Polakam, Sami Hassaan, Jeff Da, HiJae Kim, Vipul Gupta, Manasi Sharma, Andrew Park, Martin Dimakis, Ernesto Gabriel Hernandez Montoya, Dan Rambado, Ivan Salazar, Rafael Cruz, MohammadH...

    2026 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence, 2026

    DeepSeek-AI et al. Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2606.19348

    2026

  72. [80]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    name": "search

    Chenfei Wu, Jiahao Li, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kaiyuan Gao, Kun Yan, Sheng ming Yin, Shuai Bai, Xiao Xu, Yilei Chen, Yuxiang Chen, Zecheng Tang, Zekai Zhang, Zhengyi Wang, An Yang, Bowen Yu, Chen Cheng, Dayiheng Liu, Deqing Li, Hang Zhang, Hao Meng, Hu Wei, Jingyuan Ni, Kai...

    2025 arXiv

  74. [85]

    If the task can be completed in one step, output 1 subtask

    Break the task into 1-{max_subtasks} subtasks. If the task can be completed in one step, output 1 subtask

  75. [86]

    Each subtask should be independently executable

  76. [87]

    subtasks

    Subtasks will be executed in **strict sequential order (serial execution)** ## Output Format Please output ONLY the JSON below, with NO other content (no thinking, no explanations): For simple tasks (1 subtask): ‘‘‘json {{ "subtasks": [ {{ "id": "task_1", "title": "Subtask tit...

  77. [88]

    Synthesize results from all subtasks into a comprehensive final answer

  78. [89]

    Ensure the final answer completely addresses all requirements of the original task

  79. [90]

    If some subtasks failed or were skipped, please explain in the answer

  80. [91]

    Include all key findings, data, statistics, and file references from the subtasks

  81. [92]

    The final answer should be self-contained and complete ## CRITICAL: Output Format You MUST use the following XML tag format. This is mandatory: <answer> [Your complete final answer here - include all relevant content from subtasks] </answer> 22 OneDayAgent Technical Report Zhe...

  82. [93]

    Do the generated files contain the actual deliverables requested by the task?

  83. [94]

    Is the content in the files substantive and relevant (not just placeholders or empty)?

  84. [95]

    completed

    Are the key requirements addressed in the file contents? Do NOT fail the task just because: - The agent’s summary report is vague or doesn’t repeat file contents - A file’s content preview is truncated (the full file may be complete) - Minor formatting differences from the req...

    2026

  85. [2021]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374

    arXiv

  86. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110

    arXiv

  87. [2026]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09822

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.