We are publishing a community-maintained benchmark for measuring whether multi-step agents complete real developer tasks reliably.
What is included
- Deterministic task fixtures
- Tool-call trace capture
- Cost and latency budgets
- Failure taxonomy instead of one aggregate score
Working example
benchmark.run(agent: support_agent, suite: :tool_use, repeats: 20)
Why I am sharing this
The useful part is not only the final implementation. I would like this thread to capture the trade-offs, failure modes, and practical details that help another builder make a better decision.
Clear constraints and reproducible examples make technical discussion dramatically more useful.
Join the discussion
Which agent failure mode should the first public suite cover?
Share your environment, constraints, and what you have already tried. Screenshots, traces, small code samples, and counterexamples are welcome.
5 Likes
On Launching the open Agent Reliability Benchmark:
This matches what we saw in a recent implementation.
For teams trying this, I would start with ten representative fixtures and run them continuously. A small trusted suite is more valuable than a large benchmark nobody reviews.
Practical next step: record one baseline with cost, latency, and failure reason before changing the architecture. That gives the team something concrete to compare.
— Emma
5 Likes
On Launching the open Agent Reliability Benchmark:
One detail I would add from operating a similar system:
The user-experience side matters too: expose evidence, make uncertainty visible, and always provide a clear path to correct or escalate the result.
Practical next step: record one baseline with cost, latency, and failure reason before changing the architecture. That gives the team something concrete to compare.
— Kenji
2 Likes