Back to benchmarks
Released April 08, 2026

Agentic Coding

A benchmark for evaluating AI models on complex, real-world coding tasks that require multi-step reasoning, tool use, and autonomous problem-solving.
Overview

The Snorkel Agentic Coding benchmark comprises 100 multi-step coding tasks, evenly distributed across four difficulty tiers, designed to evaluate models across a diverse range of capabilities germane to real-world software engineering work.

Taking insights from our contributions to the Terminal-Bench project, our Agentic Coding tasks evaluate agents in fully sandboxed execution environments. Each task is paired with a human-validated reference solution, comprehensive unit tests, and scoring rubrics that assess both final outputs and the
agent's trajectory.

Leaderboard

Rank Model Score
1 Claude Opus 4.6
65.2%
2 Claude Opus 4.5
58%
3 Claude Sonnet 4.5
57.6%
4 Gemini 3 Pro Preview
51.6%
5 gpt-5.2
49.4%
6 gpt-5
45.2%
7 Kimi-K2-Thinking
36.8%
8 Devstral 2
33.2%
9 Grok 4.1 Fast
25.2%
10 Qwen 3 Coder 480B
18.8%
11 Mistral Large 3
13.8%

Sample Task

Incident Commander: Payments Canary Rollback

You are the on-call SRE responding to a spike in 5xx errors after a canary rollout of payments-api. All observability artifacts, runbooks, and config files are already packaged inside the container. No network access is allowed.

Requirements

  1. Diagnose the incident using logs, metrics, and traces to identify the root cause and blast radius.

  2. Execute mitigation per the runbook (/app/runbooks/payments-canary-rollback.md):

    • Update /app/config/service_state.json as specified in the runbook

    • Only modify payments-api - do not change any other services

    • Only change fields specified in the runbook - preserve all other fields exactly

    • Create any required configuration files specified in the runbook

  3. Produce output files documenting your diagnosis, actions, and validation.

Inputs

  • /app/data/logs/app.log — application logs

  • /app/data/metrics/before.json — pre-incident metrics

  • /app/data/metrics/after.json — post-mitigation metrics

  • /app/data/traces/trace_sample.json — distributed traces

  • /app/data/deployments/ — deployment manifests

  • /app/runbooks/payments-canary-rollback.md — mitigation runbook

  • /app/config/service_state.json — service configuration

Outputs

All outputs must be created exactly as specified below.

/app/outputs/incident_summary.md

Markdown document with these sections: Overview, Root Cause, Blast Radius, Evidence, Actions Taken, Validation, Next Steps.

  • Cite full artifact paths used in analysis

  • Include pod, DB host, and failure mode in root cause

  • Include the primary trace ID (the first payments-api canary error trace with DB connection issues, by timestamp), rollback_token, and correlation ID

  • List affected transaction IDs and count

  • Include the incident time window (start and end timestamps of payments-api canary DB errors)

  • Confirm unaffected services explicitly - check all other services in service_state.json (excluding payments-api) and confirm they are unaffected

  • Show before/after metrics with deltas

  • Include an "SLO Budget" section containing the words "SLO" and "budget", plus the calculated remaining budget value (monthly_budget_pct minus consumed_pct, rounded to 2 decimal places)

  • Use "disable" or "disabled" when describing the canary action

/app/outputs/actions.json

JSON array with exactly FIVE action objects:

  1. {"action": "disable_canary", "target": "payments-api", "status": "...", "details": "...", "evidence": "...", "rollback_token": "...", "correlation_id": "..."}

    • evidence must reference app.log and include the primary trace ID

    • correlation_id must be extracted from the relevant log entries

  2. {"action": "create_alert_suppression", "target": "payments-api", "status": "...", "details": "..."}

  3. {"action": "create_followup_ticket", "target": "payments-api", "status": "...", "details": "...", "priority": "...", "assigned_team": "..."}

    • priority and assigned_team must be determined per the runbook
  4. {"action": "notify_stakeholders", "target": "payments-api", "status": "...", "details": "...", "channel": "...", "escalation_level": "..."}

    • channel and escalation_level must be determined per the runbook
  5. {"action": "update_deployment_status", "target": "payments-api", "status": "...", "details": "...", "previous_status": "...", "new_status": "...", "canary_version": "..."}

    • previous_status: the status from the deployment manifest before rollback

    • new_status: "rolled_back"

    • canary_version: the version from the deployment manifest

/app/outputs/postcheck.json

JSON object with fields: error_rate_pct, p99_latency_ms, validation_passed, notes, affected_txn_count, impact_pct, incident_window, slo_budget, mttr_seconds, error_velocity

  • error_rate_pct and p99_latency_ms: values from after-metrics for payments-api

  • validation_passed: boolean based on runbook thresholds

  • notes: must contain "after.json", the literal metric names ("error_rate_pct", "p99_latency_ms"), and their threshold values ("5" and "400")

  • affected_txn_count: count of unique transactions from payments-api canary DB error log entries

  • impact_pct: (affected_txn_count / total_requests_from_before_metrics) * 100, rounded to 2 decimal places

  • incident_window: object with start and end fields containing the first and last payments-api canary DB error timestamps from logs

  • slo_budget: object with these exact fields:

    • monthly_budget_pct: 0.1 (representing 99.9% availability SLO)

    • consumed_pct: the error_rate_pct from before-metrics (during incident)

    • remaining_pct: monthly_budget_pct minus consumed_pct

  • mttr_seconds: Mean Time To Recovery - seconds between first canary DB error and last canary DB error (parse timestamps and compute difference)

  • error_velocity: errors per minute during incident - affected_txn_count divided by (mttr_seconds / 60), rounded to 2 decimal places

/app/config/alert_suppression.json

JSON object with fields:

  • service: "payments-api"

  • suppression_window_minutes: 30

  • reason: description of the incident

  • created_by: "incident-commander"

  • expires_at: ISO 8601 timestamp, computed as incident start time (first canary error) + 30 minutes

/app/data/deployments/canary_manifest.json

Update the deployment manifest:

  • Find the payments-api deployment entry

  • Change its status field from "active" to "rolled_back"

  • Preserve all other fields and entries exactly

Methodology

METRIC
Pass@5, evaluated through the Harbor evaluation harness.
TIMEOUT
Each task has a specific timeout limit, with an absolute maximum of 30 minutes for both agent and verifier.
ENVIRONMENT
Fully sandboxed execution. Each sample is accompanied by all data and dependencies required, a test suite, a rubric for human and LLM evaluators, and a golden solution.
Difficulty Tiers
Four levels, evenly distributed across 100 tasks. Calibrated to provide signal from efficiency-optimized to frontier-level models.

Behind the benchmark

The current version of the benchmark spans a wide range of task categories, from typical software engineering related tasks, to advanced ML and data analytics, as well as build and dependency management tasks, and tests agents on long-horizon planning, tracking tasks, evaluating and executing their own solutions, and recovering from potential errors and incorrect previous steps.

Our benchmark is built to challenge even the most advanced frontier models. Tasks are constructed with experts in the loop, confirming every challenge to be solvable in the environments in which they run, and verifying the reliability of all dependencies. We have calibrated the tasks so they deliver a range of difficulties, providing meaningful feedback for agents and models across the cost/performance spectrum — from those pursuing Pareto-optimal results, to those that are delivering truly frontier-level capabilities.

From the blog

Image for Introducing the Snorkel Agentic Coding Benchmark

Introducing the Snorkel Agentic Coding Benchmark

Today, we’re sharing details about the Snorkel Agentic Coding benchmark—a comprehensive evaluation suite designed to test whether agents can handle...
January 8, 2026

Get notified when we launch a new benchmark

Share this benchmark

More benchmarks

New
Open Benchmarks Grants

Frontier-Bench

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
GPT-5.6 Sol (Codex)
34.4%
2
Image
Fable 5 (Claude Code)
33.8%
3
Image
Opus 4.8 (Claude Code)
21.1%
Open Benchmarks Grants

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 (300 steps)
1
Image
gpt-5-5 · xhigh
13%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.7 · max
13%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 4.6 · medium
8.3%
New

Senior SWE-Bench

A benchmark for evaluating coding agents on senior-level engineering work: building features from realistic instructions, investigating bugs that require runtime investigation, and shipping code that aligns to existing codebase conventions.

Tasteful Solve Rate
1
Image
Claude Fable 5
27.9%
2
Image
Claude Opus 4.8
25.0%
3
Image
Claude Sonnet 5
17.4%
Open Benchmarks Grants

Agents’ Last Exam

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
1
Image
Codex · GPT-5.5
24%
2
Image
ALE Claw · GPT-5.5
23%
3
Image
Claude Code · Claude-Fable-5
22%
Open Benchmarks Grants

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%
Open Benchmarks Grants

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
ICL · Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.223
2
Image
ICL · GPT-5.4
+0.201
3
Image
Claude Code · Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.190
of

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