# SQBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Task Delivery by Language-Model Agents in Production-Oriented Workflows

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23123 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.23123/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 24 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14161/) (2024)
- [ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13304/) (2023)
- [AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15711/) (2024)
- [GDPval: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Real-World Economically Valuable Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04374/) (2025)
- [APEX-Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14242/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Existing evaluations of large language models cover knowledge, reasoning, coding, and tool use, but they rarely treat a verifiable deliverable produced within a constrained workflow as the unit of evaluation. We introduce SQBench, a benchmark for evaluating production-oriented task delivery by language-model agents. SQBench v1.0 contains 220 standardized tasks organized into L1 atomic capabilities, L2 composite skills, and L3 business scenarios. Each task requires an agent to process input assets, use available tools, and produce an explicitly specified deliverable. The evaluation first computes functional Completion and then derives Risk Penalty and Performance from independently evidenced triggers in a 10D Risk Matrix. A Strict Pass requires Completion = 1 and Risk Penalty = 0. We evaluate 27 model configurations under a common protocol, with one run per configuration-task pair. The highest prespecified Weighted Pass@1 is 60.5%. Mean Strict Pass@1 on L3 is 18.5%, and every configuration performs worse on L3 than on both L1 and L2, indicating that delivery under domain constraints is a shared weakness within the current task set. Of 2,348 results with Completion = 1, 113 (4.8%) fail the Strict Pass criterion because of risks such as unverifiable citations, inappropriate resource use, or format violations. These results show that functional completion alone does not fully characterize delivery quality and that risk determinations should be reported separately.