ClawProBench: Trace-Aware Evaluation of AI Agents with Runtime Coverage and Frozen Workplace-Style Holdouts
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
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.
Results and benchmarks
Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 3 refs, 3 links.
Utility signals: depth 55/100, grounding 75/100, status medium.
Implementation
Best maintained implementation now
ClawProBench is a live-first benchmark harness for evaluating LLM agents in the OpenClaw runtime with deterministic grading and repeated-trial reliability.
827 stars · 54 forks · Last push Aug 25, 2026 · Apache-2.0 license
- License
- CI
- Dependencies
- Docker
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords · Community adoption signal (827 stars)
suyoumo/ClawProBench is the best available implementation candidate based on ranking signals, but recommendation confidence is not yet high. CI workflows are present. License is declared (Apache-2.0).
Open suyoumo/ClawProBench- No repository-level red flags were detected, but paper-specific preprocessing and hyperparameter details may still be under-specified.
- Selected suyoumo/ClawProBench as the strongest maintained implementation for new work.
- Includes CI workflow signals.
- Includes dependency/environment manifest signals.
- Repository activity is within the last 24 months.
Reproduction readiness
Ready to run
Ready to reproduce
- Clone suyoumo/ClawProBench and install dependencies from requirements.txt.
- CI pipeline detected, so automated tests are in place.
- Last updated 66 days ago.
Quick start
git clone https://github.com/suyoumo/ClawProBench.git
pip install -r requirements.txt Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.
Models
No trustworthy models matches right now.
Search models on Hugging FaceDatasets
- xyh110sym/clawprobench
318 downloads · 2 likes · Updated Oct 19, 2026
Broaden dataset search
Spaces
No trustworthy spaces matches right now.
Search spaces on Hugging FaceResearch context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.