What it measures

Evaluates whether agents recognize missing/ambiguous requirements and ask targeted clarifying questions before acting.

Reading the measurement

The useful outcome is a verified change or deliverable. Inspect the tool interface, initial state, user simulator and policy constraints. An agent can claim completion without reaching the required state, or reach it through an action the protocol forbids.

Published evaluation

The linked publication documents the task and scoring procedure. Model results retain the source’s evaluation setting, native score units and available uncertainty.

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

Record the source publication, benchmark version, scoring units, denominator, tool access and attempt budget. Preserve uncertainty and distinguish developer-reported results from independent evaluations.

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

  1. HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark) — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Scale Labs / SEAL · 2026

Reviewed 2026-10-26. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.