I wrote a method, gave it to Codex, and it passed a Terminal-Bench task that has 59 public runs and zero passes.

Reddit r/AI_Agents News

Summary

The author developed a method to reduce agent drift in AI systems, enabling Codex to pass a Terminal-Bench task that had zero prior successes. The technique involves having the agent build a service before tackling the task directly.

59 public runs on this task, across 11 different model and agent configurations. Zero passes. The same model I used, gpt-5.6-sol at max reasoning effort, goes 0 for 5 on it in the public record. One run scored 19 of 19 on the official verifier, inside the 90 minute limit. The task is ico-path-patch on Terminal-Bench 3.0 — binary reverse engineering plus a hot patch, 19 checks, all or nothing. The only thing different about that run is that the agent didn't start on the task. It started by building itself a small service for the task, froze it, then worked the task through that service instead of re-deriving the constraints every few turns. That came from a problem everyone here knows: the longer a run goes, the further the agent's picture of where it is drifts from where it actually is. I wrote a theory about why, from running my own multi-agent system, and turned it into a method after an agent in that system started using the theory to diagnose its own drift unprompted. What I want is for other people to run this task, and there are two ways to do it. Use your own stack. Whatever you've tuned — prompts, orchestration, memory, whatever you've settled on. The task is public, the grader isn't mine, and the result is a single number that doesn't care whose scaffolding produced it. If your setup gets through it with nothing of mine involved, that's a more interesting result than my run, and honestly it would tell me my method isn't the thing doing the work. Or use mine. The steps are written up, it's free, and if it works the score is yours. I'd especially like to see it tried in a domain I've never touched — mine is software-shaped and I have no idea whether this holds up anywhere else. Either way I'd like to hear what happens, including if it does nothing. For what it's worth, it took me four scored attempts before one passed, and there's no run where the agent gets a build phase but no method text — so "any build phase would do" is still a live explanation I can't rule out. Links in the comments.
Original Article

Similar Articles

Harness engineering: leveraging Codex in an agent-first world

OpenAI Blog

OpenAI describes an internal experiment building a production software product with zero manually-written code using Codex agents, achieving approximately 10x faster development with 1.5M lines of code written by AI in five months. The team learned that effective agent-driven development requires engineers to focus on systems design, scaffolding, and feedback loops rather than writing code directly.

WorkBench Revisited: Workplace Agents Two Years On

arXiv cs.CL

This paper revisits the WorkBench benchmark for workplace agents two years after its initial release, showing that the best agent (Claude Opus 4.8) now completes 89% of tasks with only 2.5% harmful side effects, compared to GPT-4's 43% completion and 26% harm rate in 2024. It finds that capability and safety improve together, open-weight models have drastically lowered costs, and some basic mistakes persist.

I let Codex and Claude Opus work on the same Java AI agent monolith

Reddit r/AI_Agents

A developer compares Codex 5.3 and Claude Opus 4.6 on autonomous Java AI agent development, finding that the model with more elegant architecture (Claude) often produced code that never executed, while the more boring and direct Codex improved the working product with practical fixes like timeouts and history recovery.