ClawProBench
Agents on stateful runtimes are scored with their traces, covering evidence gathering, runtime routing, safety boundaries and repeated runs in frozen workplace setups.
828 GitHub stars at 2026-11-01. Evaluates a declared model plus runtime configuration.
In the authors’ words
Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: the proper unit is a declared model-plus-runtime configuration whose failures can occur in evidence acquisition, runtime routing, safety boundaries, or repeated execution. We present ClawProBench, a trace-aware benchmark for runtime-native agent evaluation instantiated on OpenClaw, a live agent runtime with workspace tools and native surfaces for browsing, memory, messaging, scheduling, skills, and subagents. ClawProBench defines two tracks: a 102-scenario full profile with live workspace and native-runtime routing tasks, and a frozen 68-scenario holdout with closed-world JSON output contracts for robust ranking. Trials are scored from execution traces via a safety-gated formula combining correctness, process quality, and efficiency, preserving failure evidence for audit. Our anonymous artifact includes benchmark definitions, scoring code, manifests and sanitized traces. We evaluate 68 configurations on the full profile and 37 on holdout. The top safety-gated average trace score is 0.7671. Native-runtime tasks underperform workspace-live tasks (0.5238 vs. 0.6415). On holdout, pass@k-any outperforms strict three-trial pass (0.6638 vs. 0.2890), while full-profile and holdout rankings show weak alignment (Spearman 0.1300). Rankings based purely on correctness differ substantially from process-aware, safety-gated and strict-pass views. Final-answer leaderboards may hide native-surface weaknesses, one-off successes and trace-local agent failure modes.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for ClawProBench yet.
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%