DarwinX: Evolving Agent Harnesses Through Natural Selection

Paper · arXiv 2608.07545 · Published July 31, 2026
Agent Harness

Abstract. An LLM agent’s capability depends not only on model weights but on its harness: prompts, tools, skills, and control flow. Self-improvement loops already edit harnesses, yet single-lineage search is path-dependent and local wins often regress other tasks. We introduce DarwinX, which treats self-evolution as selection over a population of harnesses with the model frozen: a preserve-and-extend contract admits only variants that extend coverage without regressing, an archive keeps alternative lineages for recombination, and failure-, teacher-, and self-derived evidence share one edit interface. Fitness comes from each benchmark’s own verifier: no gold solutions, no hand-picked winners. Across four benchmarks that progressively separate the evolution signal from the test, one loop adds about 17 points on average: Terminal-Bench 2.1 rises +7.7 to 83.2% on a matched base and to the verified frontier at 84.7% on a stronger one; TerminalWorld’s held-out split reaches 68.3%, ahead of every off-the-shelf agent; WebArena-Infinity real-task pass@1 rises from 43.5% to 93.0% audit-clean; and a Terminal-Bench 2.1 harness transfers unchanged to SWE-bench Verified.

Introduction. The capability of a modern LLM agent is determined as much by its harness (the prompts, tools, memory, and control flow that mediate the model) as by the underlying model [11, 56]. A growing body of work makes this harness self-improving:1 the agent edits its own procedure and keeps changes that help. These systems span an axis of what they edit (prompts [12, 49, 54], skill documents [51], workflows [16, 58, 61], and finally the agent’s own source code, as in SICA [37] and the Darwin Gödel Machine (DGM) [56]) and an axis of how they search (single-lineage keep-best vs. population/archive; Table 1). Strikingly, almost all recent work converges on the 1The natural selection of our title is meant literally, not as a metaphor: no gold labels and no hand-picked winners, only survival of the fitter variant under measured fitness, with the model itself left unchanged (§2). same inner optimization loop: batch rollouts, reflect, propose a bounded edit, gate against a held-out/regression signal. Yang et al.

Discussion / Conclusion. Scope of the evidence. The strongest matched-model evidence comes from TB2.1 (75.5 → 83.2%) and WAI (43.5 →93.0% audit-clean), both with GPT-5.5 frozen; TerminalWorld adds a disjoint held-out task set, where the evolved harness reaches 28/41. Cross-benchmark transfer is measured in one direction only: a TB2.1-evolved harness reaches 84.2% on SWE-bench Verified, ahead of the fix-skill reference but inside a narrow band around it, so the transferred gain is far smaller than the in-domain ones (§7). DarwinX improves a frozen-model agent by selecting over a population of harness variants rather than training new weights. Three parts compose it: a preserve-and-extend contract that promotes a child only when it improves on some task without giving up what its parent solved; an archive that keeps alternative lineages so complementary specialists can be inherited and recombined; and a signal interface that turns failure-, teacher-, and self-derived evidence into harness edits.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

How do we evaluate AI systems when user perception misleads actual performance? Why does verification consistently lag behind AI generation? Can AI-generated outputs constitute genuine knowledge or valid claims? Does AI fluency substitute for verifiable accuracy in human judgment? How can humans calibrate appropriate trust in AI systems? How should models express uncertainty rather than forced confident answers? How can AI systems learn from failures without cascading errors? Does self-reflection enable models to reliably correct their errors? How does objective evolution guide discovery better than fixed planning? When should tasks involve human-AI partnership versus full automation? How do multi-agent systems achieve genuine cooperation and reasoning? Can inference-time compute substitute for scaling up model parameters? How effectively do deterministic tools improve language model reasoning on formal tasks? Why does self-revision increase model confidence while degrading accuracy? Which computational strategies best support reasoning in language models?