Agentic Coding
Archived

Terminal-Bench 2.1

A revision of Terminal-Bench 2.0 that fixes 28 of 89 tasks and introduces continuous validation for agentic benchmarks.
Built with
Image
Image

Overview

Terminal-Bench 2.1 fixes issues in 28 of the 89 tasks from Terminal-Bench 2.0. The task issues fell into three categories: external dependencies that changed after the benchmark was built, resource budgets that were too tight for valid solutions to finish, and tasks where the instructions did not match the tests.

After these changes, no task is unsolved in Terminal-Bench 2.1. The release also introduces continuous validation for agentic benchmarks. A per-task breakdown and discussion is in PR #53.

Leaderboard

Rank Model Agent Date Agent Org Model Org Accuracy
1 GPT-6 Astra Codex CLI 2026-09-03 OpenAI OpenAI
87.4% ±0.9
2 Claude Fable 5 Claude Code 2026-06-09 Anthropic Anthropic
83.8% ±1.2
3 GPT-5.5 Codex CLI 2026-04-23 OpenAI OpenAI
83.1% ±1.1
4 Claude Fable 5 Terminus 2 2026-06-09 Terminal-Bench Anthropic
80.4% ±1.2
5 Grok 4.5 Cursor CLI 2026-07-08 Cursor xAI
79.3% ±1.5
6 Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Code 2026-05-28 Anthropic Anthropic
78.9% ±1.3
7 GPT-5.6 Terra Codex CLI 2026-06-26 OpenAI OpenAI
78.4% ±1.3
8 GPT-5.5 Terminus 2 2026-04-23 Terminal-Bench OpenAI
78% ±1.2
9 Muse Spark 1.1 mini-SWE-agent 2026-07-09 Princeton Meta
76.2% ±1.2
10 GPT-5.6 Luna Codex CLI 2026-06-26 OpenAI OpenAI
75.7% ±1.3
11 Claude Sonnet 5 Claude Code 2026-06-30 Anthropic Anthropic
74.6% ±1.6
12 Gemini 3 Pro Terminus 2 2025-11-18 Terminal-Bench Google
73.9% ±1.3
13 Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Code 2026-04-16 Anthropic Anthropic
68.9% ±1.4
14 Claude Opus 4.7 Terminus 2 2026-04-16 Terminal-Bench Anthropic
66.1% ±1.4
15 Gemini 3 Pro Gemini CLI 2025-11-18 Google Google
65.8% ±1.4
16 Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini CLI 2026-02-19 Google Google
65.8% ±1.7
17 Gemini 3.1 Pro Terminus 2 2026-02-19 Terminal-Bench Google
65.6% ±1.7
18 GLM-5.1 Claude Code 2026-03-27 Anthropic Z-AI
58.7% ±1.2

TB 2.0 vs 2.1 across representative pairs

Average accuracy across 14 representative agent–model pairs. Most pairs improved on 2.1. The largest gain came from Claude Code with Opus 4.6, which improved by 12.1 percentage points.
Model Agent TB 2.0 TB 2.1 Difference
GPT-5.3-Codex Codex CLI
73.3%
79.1%
5.8%
GPT-5.4 Codex CLI
76%
77.3%
1.3%
Gemini 3.1 Pro Terminus 2
63%
70.7%
7.7%
Opus 4.6 Claude Code
58%
70.1%
12.1%
GPT-5.3-Codex Terminus 2
64.7%
68.5%
3.8%
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini CLI
61.3%
67.1%
5.8%
GPT-5.4 mini Codex CLI
57.8%
66.1%
8.3%
Opus 4.6 Terminus 2
62.9%
63.8%
0.9%
Sonnet 4.6 Claude Code
51.9%
58.5%
6.6%
Gemini 3 Flash Gemini CLI
47.4%
56.9%
9.5%
GPT-5.4 Terminus 2
55.1%
54.8%
-0.3%
Gemini 3 Flash Terminus 2
51.7%
54.2%
2.5%
Sonnet 4.6 Terminus 2
48%
51.5%
3.5%
GPT-5.4 mini Terminus 2
37.8%
36.9%
-0.9%

What changed

The 28 modified tasks fell into three categories of issues identified through community feedback and continuous validation.
01
External dependencies
9 tasks. TB 2.0 pinned Docker images for reproducibility, but tasks with internet access introduced external dependencies that changed over time.
02
Resource mismatches
8 tasks. Insufficient resource budgets (CPU, memory, time) meant valid approaches — including oracle solutions — could not finish consistently.
03
Misspecification
Tasks where instructions did not match the tests. Example: query-optimize tests expected Spark SQL while the instructions asked for PostgreSQL. Rewritten to use PostgreSQL consistently.

Per-task pass rate changes

Changes in pass rate across the 28 modified tasks. Several previously unsolved tasks now have nonzero pass rates. Largest gains came from tasks whose failures were caused by environment drift, resource mismatches, or misspecification.

Acknowledgments

Led by Stanford and Laude Institute, with TB 2.1 lead Kelly Buchanan.

Get notified when we launch a new benchmark

Share this benchmark

More benchmarks

Agentic Coding

Agentic Coding 2.0

Evaluating whether coding agents can plan, execute, verify, and recover across complex terminal-native engineering tasks.

By pass@1
1
Image
GPT-6 Astra
47.6%
2
Image
Fable 5.1
39.6%
3
Image
Opus 5
38.9%
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.