Reported in recent model launches
These model reports include this benchmark. Their harnesses, task subsets, scoring policies, and resource budgets can differ; follow each report’s evaluation notes before joining the numbers.
What it measures
Tool-based agent evaluations report both repeatability and success across multiple attempts.
How to read the result
Pass@3 asks whether at least one of three attempts succeeds; pass^3 asks for success across repeated attempts. Reliability and best-of-several capability are different claims.
Limits and comparison traps
Preserve the named release, attempts, per-step token budget and environment. Never relabel pass@3 as a single-attempt success rate.
Benchmark reference notes
Agentic tool-use and workflow execution benchmark reported in Kimi K2.6.
Where this fits in an evaluation suite
A transcript that says “done” is weaker evidence than the verified final state. Track policy violations, recoveries, and invalid attempts alongside success.
Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.
A reproducible comparison
Pin the benchmark release, task split, model configuration, tools, sampling budget, and evaluation harness described by the primary source.
Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.
PRIMARY EVIDENCE & FURTHER READING
Reviewed 2026-10-26. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.