Skip to content

Standardize ExploitBench task configuration and harnesses - #1

Draft
pabloRom2004 wants to merge 105 commits into
Generality-Labs:mainfrom
pabloRom2004:main
Draft

pabloRom2004 wants to merge 105 commits into
Generality-Labs:mainfrom
pabloRom2004:main

Conversation

@pabloRom2004

@pabloRom2004 pabloRom2004 commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Changes Made:

  • Cleaned up the code to be super minimal following the structure from the hle task
  • Added the ReAct harness with a default of 100M tokens and compaction on, so we can see the real cyber capabilities of models now without them being held back by the old config
  • Added a proper recreation of the original papers setup with the same features and prompts (300 turns max, 5h clock time, 65k max output tokens, nudge prompt)
  • Added support for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Kimi Code and OpenCode through Inspect SWE (I have not tested this super in depth for every single harness and there are likely issues with some of the harnesses on super long runs, but if people want to try them they are supported, they may just need to debug any issues themselves)

Keep the task, original loop, and capability scorer thin; reduce run configuration to default and original YAML files. Add function summaries and focused mock tests, update the README, and remove unused reporting and harness variants.
Use native Inspect ReAct with a 5M-token budget and 75% summary compaction. Report cumulative token usage, retain original-agent behavior, and raise only the maintained response cap to 131072 tokens without selecting a model. Validate with 25 local tests and two mockllm runs through all six tools in the cached Modal image.
Retain the supplied introduction and usage prose, organize it under the HLE README outline, and update commands, configuration defaults, image details, and scoring for the current implementation. Validate Markdown structure, example syntax, local links, and documented parameters.
@MattFisher

Copy link
Copy Markdown

FYI this is the relevant PR if you haven't seen it: pabloRom2004#1

@pabloRom2004
pabloRom2004 marked this pull request as draft September 18, 2026 23:47
@pabloRom2004

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I'm just trying to figure out the harness recovery and such, I will open this PR again once this is all done

@pabloRom2004

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

pabloRom2004#1

I saw this PR but it's in draft? Is it good to merge in I am happy to merge it I took a look at it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants