CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 08, 2026

ClawsBench: Evaluating Capability and Safety of LLM Productivity Agents in Simulated Workspaces

arXiv AI Archived Apr 08, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.05172v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed to automate productivity tasks (e.g., email, scheduling, document management), but evaluating them on live services is risky due to potentially irreversible changes. Existing benchmarks rely on simplified environments and fail to capture realistic, stateful, multi-service workflows. We introduce ClawsBench, a benchmark for evaluating and improving LLM agents in realistic productivity setti

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 6 Apr 2026] ClawsBench: Evaluating Capability and Safety of LLM Productivity Agents in Simulated Workspaces Xiangyi Li, Kyoung Whan Choe, Yimin Liu, Xiaokun Chen, Chujun Tao, Bingran You, Wenbo Chen, Zonglin Di, Jiankai Sun, Shenghan Zheng, Jiajun Bao, Yuanli Wang, Weixiang Yan, Yiyuan Li, Han-chung Lee Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed to automate productivity tasks (e.g., email, scheduling, document management), but evaluating them on live services is risky due to potentially irreversible changes. Existing benchmarks rely on simplified environments and fail to capture realistic, stateful, multi-service workflows. We introduce ClawsBench, a benchmark for evaluating and improving LLM agents in realistic productivity settings. It includes five high-fidelity mock services (Gmail, Slack, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Google Drive) with full state management and deterministic snapshot/restore, along with 44 structured tasks covering single-service, cross-service, and safety-critical scenarios. We decompose agent scaffolding into two independent levers (domain skills that inject API knowledge via progressive disclosure, and a meta prompt that coordinates behavior across services) and vary both to measure their separate and combined effects. Experiments across 6 models, 4 agent harnesses, and 33 conditions show that with full scaffolding, agents achieve task success rates of 39-64% but exhibit unsafe action rates of 7-33%. On OpenClaw, the top five models fall within a 10 percentage-point band on task success (53-63%), with unsafe action rates from 7% to 23% and no consistent ordering between the two metrics. We identify eight recurring patterns of unsafe behavior, including multi-step sandbox escalation and silent contract modification. Comments: 25 pages, 5 figures Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2604.05172 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.05172v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.05172 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Xiangyi Li [view email] [v1] Mon, 6 Apr 2026 21:09:06 UTC (12,261 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 08, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 08, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗