RealCLI: Toward a Unified Evaluation of Human-Agent Collaboration for CLI Agents
Abstract
REALCLI is a benchmark that jointly evaluates CLI agent task execution and human-agent collaboration quality, revealing major gaps in steerability, trust calibration, and safety management.
Command-line interface (CLI) agents increasingly execute longer-horizon tasks, yet existing benchmarks either assume that user instructions remain fixed throughout execution or evaluate task outcomes without capturing runtime collaboration quality. In this paper, we present REALCLI, a paired benchmark that unifies the evaluation of task execution and human-agent collaboration quality on realistic CLI tasks. To comprehensively measure collaboration, REALCLI builds a five-dimensional framework, operationalized into 22 sub-dimensions and 51 interaction scenario templates. REALCLI provides two modes for paired comparison: REALCLI-EXEC supplies complete specifications upfront, whereas REALCLI-COLLAB introduces a scripted user that delivers progressive information, corrections, constraint revisions, and authorization decisions. Evaluations reveal profound capability gaps in frontier agents: the best configuration attains an average score of only 49.2%, and when evaluated by the joint collaboration score (J_{collab}), the peak performance reaches merely 37.6%. These results show that task effectiveness diverges sharply from collaboration quality, with models consistently struggling in steerability, trust calibration, and safety boundary management. REALCLI provides a rigorous, reproducible foundation for measuring and advancing collaborative CLI agents.
Community
๐ค RealCLI evaluates how well CLI agents both complete tasks and collaborate with users through 101 tasks in paired autonomous and interactive settings, assessing understandability, steerability, observation and recovery, trust calibration, and safety awareness. Results show that strong task performance does not guarantee effective teamwork: the best joint collaboration score reaches just 37.6%, with persistent weaknesses in responding to user interventions, communicating limitations, and respecting safety boundaries. The takeaway: better agents need stronger collaboration skills alongside execution capabilities
Github: https://github.com/RealCLI-Team/RealCLI-Benchmark-v1.0
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- SkillForgeBench: Evaluating Agent Reliability Grounded in Agent Skill Specifications (2026)
- Async-RBench: Benchmarking Asynchronous Task Execution in LLM Agents (2026)
- Design and Cross-Domain Evaluation of an Agent Execution Harness (2026)
- RepoMAS: Solving Progressively Specified Tasks with Issue-Driven Multi-Agent Systems (2026)
- Agent World Model in the Wild: Computer-Use Agent Environment Synthesis (2026)
- AgentBoundary: Counterfactual Evaluation of Safety in Tool-Using LLM Agents (2026)
- SkillHorizon: Constructing Long-Horizon Agent Tasks through Skill Composition (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2610.22507 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper