No Task Fails Every Time: Why One-Shot Audits Are Structurally Blind to Agent Damage
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce AgentRelBench, an environment-agnostic reliability instrument that computes ground-truth, severity-priced damage from database state diffs across repeated runs, with no LLM in the measurement path, demonstrated on EnterpriseOps-Gym. Across 2,128 evaluation runs spanning nine models in six families (four development, three pre-registered held-out, plus a frontier pass on two frontier-tier models that the pre-registration designates exploratory), we find: (1) damage on irreversible actions is universal across the families we measured and stochastic within them on pinned, single-provider stacks. (2) No task damaged on every run: zero always-fail cells across 42 confirmatory held-out damage events. A single clean run misses a damage-producing (model, task) pair 0.80 of the time on the development pool (13 pairs); the held-out pool is descriptively consistent (0.575 over 5 pairs, pair-weighted) but sits below our pre-registered power floor and is reported as underpowered, not as confirmation. (3) Damage-producing task count falls with model capability, from 7 of 20 tasks for an 8B model to 1 of 20 for the most capable; capability is confounded with family and training, so this is an observed gradient, not a causal claim. The residual damage does not change in character: in the exploratory frontier pass, the most capable model's one damaging task damages at hatp = 0.16 per run, inside the same demonstrably-stochastic band, and a single audit misses it 84% of the time. (4) One model family committed the gated irreversible change while declaring it had refused: transcript- and judge-based grading scores those runs as safe refusals, only state diffs as damage. All confirmatory findings were pre-registered with per-claim demote criteria; one demoted our own initially favored finding, which we report.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2026.
Builds on
9 of 12 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Beyond pass@1: A Reliability Science Framework for Long-Horizon LLM Agents31 Mar
- 2026ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions3 Jan
- 2025SABER: Small Actions, Big Errors -- Safeguarding Mutating Steps in LLM Agents26 Nov
Other references · 6
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2026Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliabilitycited by 65
- 2026AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?cited by 17
- 2026EnterpriseOps-Gym: Environments and Evaluations for Stateful Agentic Planning and Tool Use in Enterprise Settingscited by 15
- 2026SABER: Benchmarking Operational Safety of LLM Coding Agents in Stateful Project Workspacescited by 6
- 2026Designing for Doubt: The Case for Informed Abstention in Autonomous Agentscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Agent Evaluation Becomes Unreliable: An Empirical Study of Oracle Failures and Configuration-Dependent Measurement in an LLM Agent Benchmark
- 2026BLADE: Auditing Information Use for Failure Attribution in LLM Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean
- 2026AgentCollabBench: Diagnosing When Good Agents Make Bad Collaborators
- 2026Beyond Corrected Memory: Execution Consistency in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026HARP: Measuring Harm Amplification in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
- 2026LatentRiskBench: Measuring State-Dependent Risks in Enterprise Agents
- 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents