Abstract
Public leaderboards for coding agents typically rank systems by model name and pass rate, while the surrounding harness (the scaffold that issues tools, manages context, and decides when to stop) is often under-specified. Model-to-model comparison is valid when the harness is fixed; when it varies, performance and efficiency conflate model and scaffold effects.
We evaluate Qwen 3.6 Plus and MiniMax M2.5 across three open-source harnesses (Goose, OpenCode, OpenHands-SDK) on a stratified 50-task subset of Terminal-Bench Pro. Harness choice induces up to a 40x difference in tokens per solved task, while paired within-model pass-rate differences remain 0-8 percentage points (95% paired-task bootstrap CIs include zero except for the largest gap).
Failure fingerprints replicate across models (REASON for Goose, VERIFY/MAX_TURNS for OpenHands-SDK, idle-loop/TIME for OpenCode), indicating harness-level biases that are largely model-independent. For human-centered coding-agent evaluation, model name alone is an incomplete comparison unit: harness-model pairs determine real-world cost, latency, and oversight burden; no-action turns are a per-task wait tax, not just a token tax.
We therefore recommend selecting harness-model pairs by pass rate under token/latency budgets, and reporting token usage, latency, and full harness specifications alongside any model comparison. We release anonymized configs, raw trial logs, aggregated snapshots, and analysis scripts.
Blogger's Review: This article uncovers the scaffold effect in coding agent evaluations, emphasizing the importance of selecting the right harness-model pairs. By comparing different harnesses, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of model performance and avoid misjudgments caused by harness biases. This provides a new perspective for future coding agent design, warranting further attention and research.