Claw-Eval-Live
Agents complete 105 workflow tasks in 17 families drawn from live ClawHub workflow signals, scored on both the workflow and the final workspace state.
Recalibrated quarterly, so scores are tied to a release. 13 frontier models on the board. 41 HF paper upvotes. Separate from the Claw-Eval project.
In the authors’ words
LLM agents are expected to complete end-to-end units of work across software tools, business services, and local workspaces. Yet many agent benchmarks freeze a curated task set at release time and grade mainly the final response, making it difficult to evaluate agents against evolving workflow demand or verify whether a task was executed. We introduce Claw-Eval-Live, a live benchmark for workflow agents that separates a refreshable signal layer, updated across releases from public workflow-demand signals, from a reproducible, time-stamped release snapshot. Each release is constructed from public workflow-demand signals, with ClawHub Top-500 skills used in the current release, and materialized as controlled tasks with fixed fixtures, services, workspaces, and graders. For grading, Claw-Eval-Live records execution traces, audit logs, service state, and post-run workspace artifacts, using deterministic checks when evidence is sufficient and structured LLM judging only for semantic dimensions. The release contains 105 tasks spanning controlled business services and local workspace repair, and evaluates 13 frontier models under a shared public pass rule. Experiments reveal that reliable workflow automation remains far from solved: the leading model passes only 66.7% of tasks and no model reaches 70%. Failures are structured by task family and execution surface, with HR, management, and multi-system business workflows as persistent bottlenecks and local workspace repair comparatively easier but unsaturated. Leaderboard rank alone is insufficient because models with similar pass rates can diverge in overall completion, and task-level discrimination concentrates in a middle band of tasks. Claw-Eval-Live suggests that workflow-agent evaluation should be grounded twice, in fresh external demand and in verifiable agent action.
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 66.7% among models released by Mar 2026
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 Mar 2026, 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
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 66.7%
- 2 GPT-5.4 63.8%
- 3 GLM-5 61.9%
- 4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 61.9%
- 5
MiniMax-M2.7 54.3%
- 6 Kimi K2.5 53.3%
- 7
Gemini 3.1 Pro 53.3%
- 8 MiMo-V2-Pro 53.3%
- 9
DeepSeek-V3.2 51.4%
- 10
MiniMax-M2.5 50.5%
- 11
Qwen 3.6 Plus 50.5%
- 12
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 49.5%
- 13 Doubao Seed 2.0 43.8%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 66.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.4 | 63.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GLM-5 | 61.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 61.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 54.3% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Kimi K2.5 | 53.3% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 53.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 53.3% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 51.4% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 50.5% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 50.5% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 49.5% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Doubao Seed 2.0 | 43.8% | Official leaderboard |
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.
More in Tool use
- AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state.
Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
- MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks.
Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%
- BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes.
Qwen3.7-Max 75%
- τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state.
Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
- Claw-Eval In use 300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency. Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
- DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%