AgentIF
Models follow long system prompts from 50 real agentic applications, each with many constraints. Scored by constraint and instruction success rates.
NeurIPS 2025 Datasets and Benchmarks spotlight. The original setting used a gpt-4o-2024-11-20 judge and greedy decoding.
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.
o1-mini leads with 59.8% among models released by Apr 2025
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in Apr 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 59.8 o1-mini
- 58.5 GPT-4o
- 58.4
Qwen3-32B
- 58.1
QwQ-32B
- 57.9
DeepSeek-R1
- 57.8 GLM-Z1-32B
- 56.7
DeepSeek-V3
- 56.6 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024)
- 56.3
Llama 3.1-70B
- 55.1
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
- 55.0
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B
- 53.6
Llama 3.1-8B
- 47.2 Crab-DPO-7B
- 46.8
Mistral 7B v0.3
- 44.3 Conifer-DPO-7B
- 1 o1-mini thinking 59.8%
- 2 GPT-4o Nov 2024, non-thinking 58.5%
- 3
Qwen3-32B non-thinking 58.4%
- 4
QwQ-32B thinking 58.1%
- 5
DeepSeek-R1 thinking 57.9%
- 6 GLM-Z1-32B thinking 57.8%
- 7
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025, non-thinking 56.7%
- 8 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) non-thinking 56.6%
- 9
Llama 3.1-70B non-thinking 56.3%
- 10
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B thinking 55.1%
- 11
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B thinking 55%
- 12
Llama 3.1-8B non-thinking 53.6%
- 13 Crab-DPO-7B 47.2%
- 14
Mistral 7B v0.3 non-thinking 46.8%
- 15 Conifer-DPO-7B 44.3%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | o1-mini | 59.8% | thinking | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 58.5% | non-thinking | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 58.4% | non-thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 58.1% | thinking | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 57.9% | thinking | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GLM-Z1-32B | 57.8% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 56.7% | non-thinking | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) | 56.6% | non-thinking | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 56.3% | non-thinking | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 55.1% | thinking | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 55% | thinking | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 53.6% | non-thinking | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | Crab-DPO-7B | 47.2% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 46.8% | non-thinking | Sep 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | Conifer-DPO-7B | 44.3% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
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.
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | 22.9 | AgentIF |
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | | 22.9 | AgentIF, released Q4_K_M imatrix checkpoint (Table 5). BF16 25.81 (Table 3) | Capabilities |
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%