Agentic Coding

Agentic Coding 2.0

A frontier benchmark for evaluating whether coding agents can plan, execute, verify, and recover across complex terminal-native engineering tasks.

overview

Agentic Coding 2.0 is the next generation of Snorkel’s original Agentic Coding benchmark. Built from a representative frontier subset of our Terminal-Bench+ dataset, it expands the evaluation from difficult coding problems to autonomous engineering across software engineering, debugging, systems, security, data processing, machine learning, scientific computing, games, and build and dependency management.

Each task runs in an isolated, air-gapped environment. Agents must use tools, manage intermediate state, validate their work, and recover from errors. Every task includes a reference solution, deterministic tests, and rubrics that evaluate both the final result and the agent’s trajectory.

At a glance

200

frontier tasks

9

tasks types

9

target languages

Leaderboard

Rank Model Pass@1 Pass@5 Cost / Trial Cost / Task
1 GPT-6 Astra
47.6%
58.7%
$1.16 $5.79
2 Fable 5.1
39.6%
54.8%
$3.86 $19.28
3 Claude Opus 5
38.9%
62%
$2.91 $14.55
4 Grok 4.6
33.6%
53.1%
$1.11 $5.57
5 Gemini Flash 3.8
32.6%
53.1%
$1.56 $7.8
6 Kimi K3
26.1%
52.4%
$1.58 $7.9
7 Muse Spark 1.3
25%
40.3%
$1.83 $9.13
8 GLM 5.3
24.9%
46.3%
$1.2 $6.01
9 DeepSeek V4 Pro
14.8%
35.6%
$1.66 $8.29
10 Qwen 3.8 Max
14.7%
26.2%
$0.9 $4.49
11 Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B
5.1%
10.6%
$0.92 $4.6

Frontier performance

Loading chart data...

Methodology

Evaluator

Harbor evaluates deterministic task tests, required outputs, intermediate milestones, and trace-level behavior. Frontier difficulty is calibrated through repeated runs of frontier coding agents.
timeout
Each task has bounded agent, verifier, and environment-build limits. Agent and verifier traces are limited to 30 minutes.
integration

Tasks use the Harbor Terminal-Bench format with Docker environments, packaged dependencies, reference solutions, supporting files, and no network access.

scoring note

Five attempts per task support pass-rate calibration and repeatability. A task must satisfy its deterministic tests and required rubric criteria to receive credit.

Behind the benchmark

The original Agentic Coding benchmark established a focused evaluation of multi-step coding tasks. Agentic Coding 2.0 broadens that foundation into a more demanding test of autonomous engineering.

The benchmark evaluates the complete agent loop: understanding the assignment, exploring an unfamiliar environment, selecting and sequencing tools, executing a solution, inspecting the result, correcting mistakes, and producing a verifiable final state.

More benchmarks

Software Engineering

SWE-bench CLI

Tests whether an AI coding agent can diagnose and deliver a validated, multi-file change in a real open-source repository, navigating code, tests, dependencies, and tooling through the command line.

By pass@1
1
Image
Fable 5.1
14.5%
2
Image
Opus 5
14.0%
3
Image
GPT-6 Astra
12.4%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelUnderwrite 2.0

Measures an agent’s ability to turn incomplete, distributed insurance evidence into an auditable underwriting decision while respecting authority and policy constraints.

By pass@1
1
Image
GLM 5.3
30.4%
2
Image
DeepSeek V4 Pro
28.5%
3
Image
Kimi K3
27.9%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelManufacturing

Measures how well AI agents can turn fragmented plant-floor, engineering, and supplier evidence into safe, technically defensible decisions and actions.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
16.4%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
11.9%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
11.3%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelRevOps

Tests whether AI agents can reconcile revenue systems, enforce hard commercial controls, and carry a decision through to the correct business state.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
15.8%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
14.0%
3
Image
Kimi K3
13.1%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelFinance 2.0

Scores how agents gather evidence, perform financial analysis, follow compliance constraints, and complete required state updates in a simulated environment.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
25.1%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
21.2%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
19.6%
Enterprise Environments

SnorkelLegal

Evaluates AI agents on whether they can advance a legal matter while preserving the chain from controlling evidence to procedure, authority, and action.

By pass@1
1
Image
Grok 4.6
40.7%
2
Image
GLM 5.3
37.8%
3
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
36.5%
Knowledge Work

WorkplaceAgents

Evaluates AI agents on economically valuable professional work and verifiable workplace deliverables.

By pass@1
1
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
17.7%
2
Image
Grok 4.6
17.1%
3
Image
Fable 5.1
15.8%
Agentic Coding

Terminal-Bench 4.0

A benchmark to measure and evolve with the frontier of agent work: real terminal environments, real software engineering tasks, and a rolling task set that is revised as agents catch up to it.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
58.2%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
57.9%
3
Image
Opus 5
53.9%
Scientific & Research Workflows

Terminal-Bench-Science

A benchmark for evaluating AI agents on workflows from researchers’ own work. Scientists, not model developers or vendors, set the bar for scientific capability in AI.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
Fable 5.1
40.0%
2
Image
Opus 5
30.0%
3
Image
GPT-5.6 Sol
22.4%
Agentic Coding

Terminal-Bench 3.0

The next frontier benchmark for agent work. A harder, more domain-diverse successor to Terminal-Bench 2.1 — built in the open, task by task, under continuous adversarial review.

By Resolution Rate
1
Image
Opus 5
42.7%
2
Image
GPT-5.6 Sol
34.6%
3
Image
Fable 5
34.1%
Computer Use

OSWorld 2.0

Long-horizon professional workflows with verifiable outcomes across 55 sub-industries. 147 public tasks of a 1,500+ task corpus, sourced and validated by 300+ industry experts.

By binary accuracy (500 steps)
1
Image
Opus 5 · max
44.33%
2
Image
Opus 5 · xhigh
36.89%
3
Image
Opus 5 · high
33.33%
Software Engineering

Senior SWE-Bench

Evaluating coding agents on senior-level engineering work.

Tasteful Solve Rate
1
Image
Fable 5.1
34.7%
2
Image
Fable 5
34.7%
3
Image
Opus 5
34.7%
Knowledge Work

Agents’ Last Exam

Evaluating AI agents on long-horizon, economically valuable professional workflows with verifiable outcomes.

By Binary Accuracy
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
34.2
2
Image
Muse Spark 1.3
32.2%
3
Image
Opus 5
31.6%
Software Engineering

SlopCode Bench

Measures code quality degradation in AI-assisted codebases. Tracks checkpoint solve rates, erosion (code bloat), and verbosity under realistic repo conditions.

Top Models by Iso Solve
1
Image
GPT-5.5
28.06%
2
Image
GPT-5.3-Codex
26.02%
3
Image
GPT-5.4
23.47%
Capability/Efficiency

Continual Learning Bench

Evaluates whether AI systems improve from prior experience across sequential, stateful tasks, measuring real in-context learning, not just raw capability.

Top Systems (Agg. Reward)
1
Image
Sonnet 4.6 · ICL
+0.196
2
Image
GPT-5.4 · ICL
+0.189
3
Image
Sonnet 4.6 · Claude Code
+0.185
of

For models that need to be right. Not just good enough.