LongHorizon-Harness: Advancing Long-Horizon Agents for Real-World Tasks
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly undertake long-horizon tasks that require sustained reasoning, tool use, and revision across many interdependent steps. However, existing agent harnesses maintain task execution, task state, and completion assessment within a growing context, making the state difficult to track and allowing incorrect self-assessments to propagate into later decisions. We reformulate long-horizon execution as a task-state management problem and propose LongHorizon- Harness, which maintains the task state explicitly outside execution and updates it only with facts independently verified from the environment. Its Manage-Execute-Audit (MEA) loop uses a manager to maintain the task state and determine the next subtask, a fresh-context executor to perform it, and a read-only auditor to verify the resulting environment state before the next round. A lightweight AgentAdapter supports interchangeable model and harness backends without modifying their native agent loops. LongHorizon-Harness improves Qwen 3.7-Plus from 51.8% to 80.7% on WeaveBench, from 69.7% to 77.2% on Terminal-Bench 2.1, and from 2.8% to 8.3% on OSWorld 2.0.
Introduction. Over the past few years, large language models (LLMs) have evolved from conversational models into the decision-making core of autonomous agents for software engineering (Yang et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025; Ren et al., 2026; Ding et al., 2025), general-purpose assistance (Anthropic, 2025; OpenAI, 2025a;b; Anthropic, 2026), scientific discovery (Sun et al., 2025; Wei et al., 2025a), computer use (Anthropic, 2024; OpenAI, 2025c; Google DeepMind, 2025; Sager et al., 2026; Zhou et al., 2026; Zheng et al., 2026), and multimodal interaction (Zhang et al., 2023; Agashe et al., 2025). Across these applications, agents increasingly face long-horizon execution, which requires repeated reasoning, tool use, observation, and revision over many interdependent steps, sometimes across multiple context windows or sessions. The length of tasks that agents can complete increasingly determines how much work can be delegated to them.
Discussion / Conclusion. In this work, we introduce LongHorizon-Harness, a general framework for long-horizon agent execution that separates task-state management from environment interaction through a Manage–Execute–Audit loop. LongHorizon-Harness maintains progress as explicit, audited task state, executes each subtask in a fresh context, and carries only independently verified outcomes across rounds. Experiments on WeaveBench, OSWorld 2.0, and Terminal-Bench 2.1 show consistent improvements across hybrid GUI–CLI workflows, professional desktop tasks, pure command-line environments, and different model backbones. These results demonstrate that long-horizon agent capability is determined not only by the underlying model, but also by the harness that organizes, verifies, and converts its local capabilities into end-to-end task completion.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
When should tasks involve human-AI partnership versus full automation?- Why can't users and AI articulate shared goals together?
- What tasks do users actually want AI to handle versus what can it automate?
- How does rising AI capability change what users expect from their tools?
- Can better AI interfaces eliminate the attention cost of prompt composition and evaluation?
- What makes prompt engineering different from the research thinking it replaces?
- How does prompt scaffolding shift invisible labor onto the user?
- Can designers hide AI context complexity behind a stable user interface?
- How should designers make invisible AI state legible to users?
- How does API-first interaction compare to generative interface approaches?
- What makes evaluation easier than envisioning for users?
- Can users articulate what they want before AI helps them discover it?
- How do users fail to articulate what they actually want?
- Can generative interfaces help users articulate what they actually want?
- Can prompt engineering overcome the gulf between user intent and AI interpretation?
- What makes complex UI navigation and social interaction harder than task completion?
- Can users articulate their intent before exploring what an AI system finds?