mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Finding the Right Fit: Model-Harness Interactions across Agent Tasks

arXiv 2610.00917 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks also fits: Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Choosing an agent system means choosing both a language model and the harness through which it acts. We ask whether a strong model, harness, or pairing stays strong when the setting changes. We evaluate 66 configurations: four configurable harnesses (OpenHands, DeepSeek Harness, PI, and openJiuwen) paired with five models on TUA-Bench, ALE-CLI, and Terminal-Bench 4, plus the native Codex-GPT and Claude Code-Claude pairings. Model rankings reverse across harnesses. On Terminal-Bench 4, Claude leads GPT by 7.94 points in OpenHands but trails it by 30.16 points in PI. For four of the five models, the best harness changes from one benchmark to another, yet some pairings hold: openJiuwen gives Kimi its highest score on all three benchmarks, by 5.61 to 11.11 points. A model's own vendor harness is not reliably its best, and higher cost does not reliably buy a higher score. On Terminal-Bench 4, GPT scores higher under PI than under DSH at less than a quarter of the cost per task. Matched trajectories suggest why fit varies. Models start almost all repairs themselves, so much depends on whether the harness hands failures back in a form the model can use. GPT does best with PI's lean scaffold, while Kimi, which often issues malformed tool calls, does best in openJiuwen. We argue that the model, the harness, and the task should be evaluated together, and we release the harness adapters, evaluation code, and all 6,204 scored trajectories at https://github.com/liyix/finding-the-right-fit and https://huggingface.co/datasets/yixuanli97/finding-the-right-fit.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 25 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

25 of 27 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation13 Oct
  2. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents7 Aug

Other references · 23

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  3. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  5. 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
  6. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,628
  7. 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,295
  8. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
  9. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  10. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 956
  11. 2024Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agentscited by 537
  12. 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 515
11 more
  1. 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agentscited by 400
  2. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
  3. 2026Harness-Bench: Measuring Harness Effects across Models in Realistic Agent Workflowscited by 44
  4. 2023A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoningcited by 41
  5. 2026Agents' Last Examcited by 25
  6. 2026Learning to Self-Verify Makes Language Models Better Reasonerscited by 18
  7. 2026Polar: Agentic RL on Any Harness at Scalecited by 12
  8. 2026The Interplay of Harness Design and Post-Training in LLM Agentscited by 8
  9. 2026The Scaffold Effect in Coding Agents: Harness Choice as a Hidden Variable in Coding-Agent Evaluationcited by 8
  10. 2026TUA-Bench: A Benchmark for General-Purpose Terminal-Use Agentscited by 7
  11. 2026MIND-Skill: Quality-Guaranteed Skill Generation via Multi-Agent Induction and Deductioncited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Stop Comparing LLM Agents Without Disclosing the Harness
  2. 2026Harness or Model? Isolating the Harness Effect in Agentic Coding with a Contamination-Controlled Private Suite
  3. 2026Same Model, Different Harness: Different Coding-Agent Results
  4. 2026Better Harnesses, Smaller Models: Building 90% Cheaper Agents via Automated Harness Adaptation
  5. 2026Don't Blame the Large Language Model: How Agent Harness Evolution Shapes Coding Agent Quality
  6. 2026The Empire, Long Divided, Must Unite: Architectural Convergence in Three LLM Agent Harnesses
  7. 2026Harness-Zero: Harness Distillation via Agent-as-Harness
  8. 2026HarnessCompass: Guiding Automatic Harness Evolution toward Generalizable and Effective Agent Harnesses