AgentIF (2026-10 setting)
Models follow the same AgentIF instructions in thinking and non-thinking modes with vendor decoding settings. A gpt-5.6-luna judge scores 3 runs per model.
The maker says scores under this setting are not comparable with the original setting. It also fixed several constraint checkers.
In the authors’ words
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities in real-world agentic applications. Growing research efforts aim to develop LLM-based agents to address practical demands, introducing a new challenge: agentic scenarios often involve lengthy instructions with complex constraints, such as extended system prompts and detailed tool specifications. While adherence to such instructions is crucial for agentic applications, whether LLMs can reliably follow them remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce AgentIF, the first benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM instruction following ability in agentic scenarios. AgentIF features three key characteristics: (1) Realistic, constructed from 50 real-world agentic applications. (2) Long, averaging 1,723 words with a maximum of 15,630 words. (3) Complex, averaging 11.9 constraints per instruction, covering diverse constraint types, such as tool specifications and condition constraints. To construct AgentIF, we collect 707 human-annotated instructions across 50 agentic tasks from industrial application agents and open-source agentic systems. For each instruction, we annotate the associated constraints and corresponding evaluation metrics, including code-based evaluation, LLM-based evaluation, and hybrid code-LLM evaluation. We use AgentIF to systematically evaluate existing advanced LLMs. We observe that current models generally perform poorly, especially in handling complex constraint structures and tool specifications. We further conduct error analysis and analytical experiments on instruction length and meta constraints, providing some findings about the failure modes of existing LLMs. We have released the code and data to facilitate future research.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads with 67.4%
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.
- 67.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 65.8
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 65.6
Qwen3.8 Flash
- 65.3
Qwen3.5-9B
- 64.9 Kimi K3
- 64.8
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 64.7
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B
- 64.4 GLM-5.3-Flash
- 64.2 GLM-5.3
- 63.2
Gemma 4 12B
- 63.0
Gemma 4 E4B
- 62.3
Qwen3.5-4B
- 61.9
MiniMax-M2.7
- 61.2 nvidia-nemotron-nano-9b-v2
- 61.0
Gemma 4 E2B
- 59.9 deepseek-r1-0528-qwen3-8b
- 58.8 Granite 4.2 3B
- 58.5
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- 55.9
Ministral 3 3B Instruct
- 55.8
Qwen3.5-2B
- 55.0 gpt-oss-20b
- 54.4
Hunyuan-4B-Instruct
- 54.2
MiniCPM5-2B
- 53.8
Ministral 3 3B Reasoning
- 1
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking 67.4%
- 2
Qwen 3.8 27B thinking 65.8%
- 3
Qwen3.8 Flash thinking 65.6%
- 4
Qwen3.5-9B thinking 65.3%
- 5 Kimi K3 thinking 64.9%
- 6
Gemma 4 31B IT thinking 64.8%
- 7
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B non-thinking 64.7%
- 8 GLM-5.3-Flash thinking 64.4%
- 9 GLM-5.3 thinking 64.2%
- 10
Gemma 4 12B thinking 63.2%
- 11
Gemma 4 E4B non-thinking 63%
- 12
Qwen3.5-4B thinking 62.3%
- 13
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking 61.9%
- 14 nvidia-nemotron-nano-9b-v2 thinking 61.2%
- 15
Gemma 4 E2B thinking 61%
- 16 deepseek-r1-0528-qwen3-8b thinking 59.9%
- 17 Granite 4.2 3B thinking 58.8%
- 18
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B non-thinking 58.5%
- 19
Ministral 3 3B Instruct non-thinking 55.9%
- 20
Qwen3.5-2B thinking 55.8%
- 21 gpt-oss-20b thinking 55%
- 22
Hunyuan-4B-Instruct thinking 54.4%
- 23
MiniCPM5-2B thinking 54.2%
- 24
Ministral 3 3B Reasoning thinking 53.8%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 67.4% | thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 65.8% | thinking | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 65.6% | thinking | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 65.3% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Kimi K3 | 64.9% | thinking | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 64.8% | thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 64.7% | non-thinking | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | GLM-5.3-Flash | 64.4% | thinking | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GLM-5.3 | 64.2% | thinking | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 63.2% | thinking | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 63% | non-thinking | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 62.3% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 61.9% | thinking | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | nvidia-nemotron-nano-9b-v2 | 61.2% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 61% | thinking | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | deepseek-r1-0528-qwen3-8b | 59.9% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | Granite 4.2 3B | 58.8% | thinking | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 58.5% | non-thinking | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 55.9% | non-thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | | 55.8% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | gpt-oss-20b | 55% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | | 54.4% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | | 54.2% | thinking | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | | 53.8% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | thinking | 67.4% | |||
| | thinking | 65.8% | |||
| | thinking | 65.6% | |||
| | thinking | 65.3% | |||
| Kimi K3 | thinking | 64.9% | |||
| | thinking | 64.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 64.7% | |||
| | non-thinking | 64.7% | |||
| GLM-5.3-Flash | thinking | 64.4% | |||
| GLM-5.3 | thinking | 64.2% | |||
| | thinking | 63.6% | |||
| | non-thinking | 63.6% | |||
| | non-thinking | 63.4% | |||
| | thinking | 63.2% | |||
| | non-thinking | 63% | |||
| | non-thinking | 62.4% | |||
| | thinking | 62.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 62% | |||
| | thinking | 61.9% | |||
| | thinking | 61.6% | |||
| nvidia-nemotron-nano-9b-v2 | thinking | 61.2% | |||
| | thinking | 61% | |||
| | non-thinking | 61% | |||
| nvidia-nemotron-nano-9b-v2 | non-thinking | 60.4% | |||
| | non-thinking | 60.3% | |||
| deepseek-r1-0528-qwen3-8b | thinking | 59.9% | |||
| Granite 4.2 3B | thinking | 58.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 58.5% | |||
| | non-thinking | 55.9% | |||
| | thinking | 55.8% | |||
| | thinking | 55.6% | |||
| Granite 4.2 3B | non-thinking | 55.2% | |||
| gpt-oss-20b | thinking | 55% | |||
| | thinking | 54.4% | |||
| | thinking | 54.2% | |||
| | thinking | 53.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 52.4% | |||
| | non-thinking | 50.1% | |||
| | non-thinking | 43.9% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
More in Instructions and chat
- IFEval In use Models answer about 500 prompts containing verifiable instructions such as word limits or required keywords. Code checks each instruction for strict and loose accuracy.
Gemma 4 31B IT 98.9%
- IFBench In use 58 new out-of-domain verifiable output constraints. Scored by programmatic constraint checks (strict or loose).
Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B 82.9%
- MultiChallenge In use Multi-turn conversations testing instruction retention, inference memory, versioned editing and self-coherence. Graded by LLM judge with rubrics. GPT-6.1 Sol 82%
- Multi-IF In use Models follow verifiable instructions over three-turn conversations in eight languages, extending IFEval. Scored by instruction accuracy at each turn. LFM3-1.7B 89.1%
- AdvancedIF In use Models respond to over 1,600 prompts with complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. A judge model checks each response against expert-written rubrics.
MAI-Thinking-1 85%
- IFStruct In use Models generate JSON or YAML that must follow a requested schema and phrasing constraints, without constrained decoding. A response passes only if every structural constraint holds. LFM3-1.7B 93.7%