InterCode-CTF
Agents solve 100 picoCTF capture-the-flag challenges in an interactive Bash and Python environment.
Agents work in an interactive Bash and Python environment on picoCTF challenges in coding, cryptography, reverse engineering and vulnerability finding. Google omits challenges that need internet access, leaving 76. UK AISI inspect_evals ships it as gdm_intercode_ctf.
In the authors’ words
Humans write code in a fundamentally interactive manner and rely on constant execution feedback to correct errors, resolve ambiguities, and decompose tasks. While LLMs have recently exhibited promising coding capabilities, current coding benchmarks mostly consider a static instruction-to-code sequence transduction process, which has the potential for error propagation and a disconnect between the generated code and its final execution environment. To address this gap, we introduce InterCode, a lightweight, flexible, and easy-to-use framework of interactive coding as a standard reinforcement learning (RL) environment, with code as actions and execution feedback as observations. Our framework is language and platform agnostic, uses self-contained Docker environments to provide safe and reproducible execution, and is compatible out-of-the-box with traditional seq2seq coding methods, while enabling the development of new methods for interactive code generation. We use InterCode to create three interactive code environments with Bash, SQL, and Python as action spaces, leveraging data from the static NL2Bash, Spider, and MBPP datasets. We demonstrate InterCode's viability as a testbed by evaluating multiple state-of-the-art LLMs configured with different prompting strategies such as ReAct and Plan & Solve. Our results showcase the benefits of interactive code generation and demonstrate that InterCode can serve as a challenging benchmark for advancing code understanding and generation capabilities. InterCode is designed to be easily extensible and can even be used to create new tasks such as Capture the Flag, a popular coding puzzle that is inherently multi-step and involves multiple programming languages. Project site with code and data: https://intercode-benchmark.github.io
- Level
- School Students, from grade school to high school
- 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.
2 models share the top score of 98.7% among models released by Jun 2025
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
The newest model with a score here came out in Jun 2025, and nobody has reported 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro Mar 2025 98.7%
- 2
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025 98.7%
- 3
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 97.4%
- 4
Gemma 2 27B 44.7%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 98.7% | Apr 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 98.7% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 97.4% | Jul 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 44.7% | Jul 2024 | Model card |
2 models have held number one since its release in Jun 2023
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Apr 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
4 system cards report it, from 1 lab
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 97.4 | InterCode-CTF (easy), 74/76 solved (Table 10, Figure 10) | Cyber risk |
| 7 Jul 2025 | | 98.7 | InterCode-CTF (easy), 75/76 solved (Figure 10 bar label) | Cyber risk |
| 28 Apr 2025 | | 98.7 | InterCode-CTF (easy), 75/76 solved (Table 1, Figure 2) | Cyber risk |
| 31 Jul 2024 | | 44.7 | InterCode-CTF, 34/76 challenges solved (45%), internet-requiring challenges omitted (Table 19) | Cyber risk |
More in Cybersecurity
- ExploitGym In use 869 real-vulnerability exploit-development tasks (userspace, V8, Linux kernel). Success means capturing a flag through the intended vulnerability. GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
- ExploitBench In use 41 recent V8 JavaScript-engine N-day vulnerabilities. Progress measured by 16 grader-verified capability flags across five tiers. GPT-6 Astra 100%
- CWE-bench In use Agents audit a repository and write a patch for a security flaw, without being told where the bug is. Covers six programming languages.
Gemini 4 Carbon 71%
- Real-world vulnerability discovery In use Agents search popular open-source codebases to rediscover about 1,200 recent confirmed vulnerabilities across many languages. Reports share discovered.
Gemini 4 Argon 86%
- Artificial Analysis Cyber Index In use Agents do enterprise cyber defense tasks from three benchmarks, CWE-Bench-AA, DeepsecBench-AA and CyberGym-E2E-AA, combined into one success rate.
Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 51%
- Big Sleep Evaluation (Google) In use Agents search large real codebases such as Chrome and Safari for critical, hard to find vulnerabilities. Scored by pass@1 success rate, run without safety guardrails.
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 72%