Vibeleaderboard
← All Intel
Intel / article

Hil

Source
scale.com
Author
Scale AI blog
Date
Why it matters

Agents silently guess past missing requirements instead of asking. Shows model-specific failure modes (confident wrong beliefs, detecting but not acting, vague questions) and gives a reproducible to test your own agents.

Key takeaways · AI-distilled
  • Scale's HiL-Bench hides missing, ambiguous or contradictory details in Pro and BIRD tasks. Frontier agents that solve 75% to 89% with full information drop as low as 4%, filling gaps with confident assumptions.
  • Giving agents a clarification tool did not fix this when they chose when to use it: performance peaked at 38% on SQL and 12% on software tasks, so the mechanism to ask existed without the judgment to use it.
  • Across more than 3,600 failure traces, GPT models built on wrong beliefs without noticing gaps, Claude recognized it was stuck in 45% of its failures yet submitted anyway, and Gemini asked often but too vaguely.
  • Reinforcement learning on a 32B model raised Ask-F1 by 28 points on SQL and 17 on software tasks, and a model trained only on SQL also asked better on unseen software tasks, which the authors read as a transferable .
Terms in this piece · Glossary
  • SWE-bench — The standard benchmark for AI coding agents: real GitHub issues from real repositories, scored by whether the agent's patch passes the project's own tests.
  • agent harness — The scaffolding around a model that turns it into a working agent — the loop, the tools it can call, and the rules for when to stop.
  • alignment — The work of making AI systems actually pursue what their builders and users intend, rather than something subtly or dangerously different.
  • agent skill — A reusable instruction file that teaches an agent how to do one job well — the procedure, the tools, and what counts as done.
More from Scale AI blog
Recommended reads
Comments

Checking sign-in…

Loading comments…