CordisBench: Can Language Models Reason About Component Lifecycles in Dynamic Agent Harnesses?
cs.CL, cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-09-01
Updated: 2026-09-01
Comments: 13 pages, 6 figures, 5 tables. Code: https://github.com/sileod/cordis-bench ; Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/sileod/cordis-bench
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Dynamic agent harnesses let language models change the software that shapes their own execution.
Terminology
Abstract
Dynamic agent harnesses let language models change the software that shapes their own execution. This flexibility brings a new reasoning burden: a local plugin change can propagate through dependencies and cleanup. We introduce CordisBench, a 1,200-question benchmark of this lifecycle reasoning. It combines a controlled formal setting with programs executed against Cordis, a runtime that manages component dependencies and cleanup, and asks models to identify affected components, predict state after a specified teardown order, determine which conditions hold under all or some orders, and choose reconfigurations that succeed when executed. Across these tasks, we evaluate three efficiency-oriented models at low reasoning effort with 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, or 32 relevant interactions, using deterministic task-specific scoring. Models usually handle small systems well but grow less reliable as more interactions become relevant, especially when predicting final state and when reasoning across teardown orders. Additional inference effort recovers marked gains for some models. The cost is nontrivial: on our 16-interaction subset, GPT-5.6 Luna uses nearly 3,000 reasoning tokens per question at medium effort. For these controlled instances, that cost is avoidable: an independent finite reference semantics agrees with Cordis execution on every observation and action outcome used for scoring across all 528 executable questions.
Sources
- Agentic Harness Engineering: Observability-Driven Automatic Evolution of Coding-Agent Harnesses
- (How) Do Large Language Models Understand High-Level Message Sequence Charts?
- ScratchLens: Lens-Parametric Behavioral Equivalence for Scratch Programs
- Evaluating Program Semantics Reasoning with Type Inference in System F
- TempoBench: Reasoning Execution Without Causal Attribution Is Just Simulation
- CONCUR: Benchmarking LLMs for Concurrent Code Generation
- Evo-Bench: Can Language Models Improve Agent Harness?
- Assessing Large Language Models in Comprehending and Verifying Concurrent Programs across Memory Models
- An Axiomatic Theory for Reversible Computation
- LLMs Lean on Priors, Not Programming Language Semantics
- Rethinking the Evaluation of Harness Evolution for Agents
- Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselves
- Hierarchical Self-Improvement: A Framework for Task-Specific Evolvable Agent Harnesses
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering