mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Mingbird: A Local-First Agent Harness Enabling Small Open Models to Complete Real Tasks

arXiv 2610.02001 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Small open-weight models (2-9B) run on ordinary laptops, but under cloud-scale agent harnesses they rarely complete real tasks: tool prefill overflows the context, self-correction diverges, tool demonstrations loop, and tasks are silently abandoned. We present evidence, from a controlled single-machine comparison and one third-party benchmark, that a substantial share of these failures is attributable to the harness rather than the model. We introduce Mingbird, a local-first agent harness for Windows and Ollama whose ten mechanisms compensate point-by-point for small-model failure forms, three of them representative: a byte-level net-zero prefill budget, a finish gate that re-reads the task before accepting completion, and signature-level loop detection. On LRAB, a controlled comparison holding machine, models, budgets, and scoring fixed (4 harnesses × 4 open models (2B-35B) × 18 real tasks, deterministic artifact scoring), Mingbird reaches 0.886 overall against 0.631 (goose), 0.479 (opencode), and 0.405 (agent-mini), with all 288 cells published; on τ2-bench (278 tasks, three arms, one protocol) it totals 0.856 against 0.791 and 0.737; and a frontier-model probe on the same 18 tasks spans 0.997 to 0.478 across harnesses, with well-formed scaffolds staying within 0.072 of each other. A leave-one-mechanism-out ablation is reported as directional only: same-night replications of the same arm move its mean by up to 0.069, the size of every nominal single-trial delta, and the one batch-matched comparison (full mechanism stack versus text re-read alone) gives the executable completion guards a paired +0.10 across three replications. The evidence carries stated limits: a self-built benchmark, a single machine, and single-trial scoring.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

46 of 60 references.

References · 46

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  4. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  5. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  6. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
  7. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  8. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  9. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
  10. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,880
  11. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,628
  12. 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,302
34 more
  1. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  2. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
  3. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
  4. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  5. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 956
  6. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
  7. 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
  8. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
  9. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 558
  10. 2024AndroidWorld: A Dynamic Benchmarking Environment for Autonomous Agentscited by 450
  11. 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agentscited by 400
  12. 2024AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generationcited by 395
  13. 2024Automated Design of Agentic Systemscited by 360
  14. 2024AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agentscited by 359
  15. 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 319
  16. 2025SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Modelcited by 307
  17. 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
  18. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Designcited by 256
  19. 2025Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AIcited by 254
  20. 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
  21. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
  22. 2023Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Modelscited by 192
  23. 2026Gemma 4 Technical Reportcited by 187
  24. 2024Same Task, More Tokens: the Impact of Input Length on the Reasoning Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 150
  25. 2024Small Language Models: Survey, Measurements, and Insightscited by 109
  26. 2024Guiding LLMs The Right Way: Fast, Non-Invasive Constrained Generationcited by 99
  27. 2024Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 90
  28. 2024Language Agents as Optimizable Graphscited by 81
  29. 2024XGrammar: Flexible and Efficient Structured Generation Engine for Large Language Modelscited by 73
  30. 2024CRMArena: Understanding the Capacity of LLM Agents to Perform Professional CRM Tasks in Realistic Environmentscited by 69
  31. 2025JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Modelscited by 66
  32. 2024TinyAgent: Function Calling at the Edgecited by 55
  33. 2026Stop Comparing LLM Agents Without Disclosing the Harnesscited by 25
  34. 2026Scaffold Effects on GAIA: A Controlled Comparisoncited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.