Grow the Harness, Not the Context: From Strategy-Free Scaffolds to Reusable Specialist Agents
Laizhen Li, Jiarui Li, Juanjuan Zhao, Kejiang Ye, Ye Li, Cheng-zhong Xu, Xitong Gao
cs.AI · cs.SE
Quick verdict
Learns agent harness code from failures starting from an empty scaffold; strong cost–success gains but tiny eval sets and no learned-baseline comparison.
Summary
The paper introduces Growing Harness, a training paradigm in which an LLM agent's orchestration code — the harness — is itself learned from task feedback. Training starts from a 'strategy-free' scaffold that exposes fixed model and tool interfaces but contains no controller. Failed executions are traced at function level; an offline optimizer model (GPT-5.6-terra or GPT-5.4) synthesizes repair candidates constrained to traced functions and an edit budget; each candidate must fix enough failures and pass a success-first gate on 50 held-out tasks, otherwise the repair sequence is transactionally rolled back. Across BrowseComp-Plus and WebArena-Verified (200 train / 50 gate / 50 final tasks) with gpt-oss-120b, gpt-oss-20b and Qwen3.5-4B, the method attains the highest mean success in five of six benchmark-model settings and trails by 0.7 pp in the sixth (39.3 vs 40.0 on BrowseComp-Plus with gpt-oss-20b), while cutting LLM calls 76.0-91.8% and deployed-agent cost 74.4-98.6% versus a Tool-Calling agent. On WebArena-Verified, success stays 44.7-45.3% across model scales while Tool-Calling drops to 6.7% with the 4B model. Main limitations: 50-task evaluations with confidence half-widths of ±11-13 pp and no significance tests, single-run ablations, no comparison against cited learning-based optimizers such as AutoHarness or Meta-Harness, unreported offline optimization cost, and no code release.
Review complete
Assessment at a glance
0
risk flags identified
● high 0
● medium 0
● low 0
0 strengths · 0 weaknesses · 0 author questions
AI text signal = Binoculars zero-shot detector score over 20 sampled passages (Fast-DetectGPT co-reported) — absence does not prove human authorship, and a flag does not imply misconduct.
Levels reflect verification complexity — not a quality score. Evolve never rates your paper.
Full Review Report
$1.99 · one-timeUnlock the complete preliminary analysis Evolve produced for this paper.
- All 0 strengths & 0 weaknesses, analyzed in detail
- 0 risk flags with severity, section & reviewer questions
- Methods & statistical evidence assessment
- 0 questions a peer reviewer would ask
- Full six-dimension evaluation report & recommendations
One-time purchase · this paper only
One-time purchase, this paper only. AI-generated preliminary analysis — not peer review.
About this review
This is an AI-generated preliminary review by Evolve.Pub, produced from the openly available text of the paper. It is not peer review and does not represent the authors' views. The canonical record of the paper is at the publisher link above.
Go deeper on this paper
Wrote a paper? Stress-test it before reviewers do.
Upload your manuscript for the same structured scrutiny — reasoning, statistics, evidence, figures, and reproducibility.
