Google Research has posted Harness² on arXiv1 and released code in a google-research GitHub repository2, describing a framework that improves AI agents by changing their harness rather than their model weights.
The release matters because it targets a practical constraint in agent systems: performance depends not only on the underlying model but also on the prompts, tools, memory and orchestration around it. In the paper, Google Research reports gains on three professional benchmarks without changing model weights, but those numbers come from the authors' own evaluation and the paper is an arXiv preprint, not a peer-reviewed publication arXiv1.
What Google Research says Harness² does
According to the arXiv paper1, Harness² is a "plug-and-play, recursive agent harnessing framework" for "open-world" tasks, meaning tasks that were unseen during harness design and are novel at test time. The paper says the system works through two levels of recursion.
At the task level, Harness² refines the harness for a current task using what the paper calls a contrastive "Propose-Probe-Compose" step, intended to guide edits "without ground-truth verifiers" arXiv1. At the harnessing level, it extracts lessons from those edits and updates a continuing improvement harness so the agent can adapt better on later tasks, according to the same paper.
The GitHub repository2 defines a harness as the system around a model that enables it to act as an agent, including "prompts, tools, memory, skills, orchestration, and more." It says Harness² exposes eight editable components: system prompt, guardrails, memory, tool guidance, subagents, skills, scripts and plugins GitHub2.
That distinction matters for interpreting the results. The paper and repository both present the work as changing the execution system around a fixed model, not training or fine-tuning the model itself arXiv1 GitHub2.
What the reported benchmark gains cover
In the abstract, the paper1 says that "across three professional benchmarks and four model-harness configurations, a single step consistently improves GLM-5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash over their base harnesses," with gains of up to 11.5 points on WorkBuddy-Bench, 4.5 points on JobBench and 11.8 percentage points on LAB. It also says gains increase as the task-level recursion budget rises arXiv1.
The project page3 adds a more specific example for one configuration: Gemini 3.5 Flash with OpenCode improved on WorkBuddy from 72.4 for the base harness to 77.5 with Harness² at k=1, and to 80.8 with parallel recursion at k=5. The same page says the WorkBuddy average is a macro-average of Code, Web and Office and that the figures shown are reported means across three runs project page3.
Those details help frame what is and is not being compared. The baseline in the reported example is a base harness, not a different model family. The scaling parameter k is described in the GitHub documentation2 as the task-level recursion budget, with k=1 meaning one Propose-Probe-Compose step, while larger values can use parallel or sequential recursion.
The repository also lists the supported benchmarks as JobBench, LAB and WorkBuddy-Bench, and says the release supports both OpenCode and Codex executors GitHub2. For reproducibility, that matters because benchmark results in agent systems can depend heavily on executor choice, task selection and run settings.
The available materials also include some caveats. The GitHub repository2 says model-backed runs incur API costs and advises starting with a small task selection. It further says executor network access is unrestricted, Codex runs with its sandbox disabled, and public benchmark rubrics may be accessible online; before evaluation, users are told to configure network restrictions to prevent access to benchmark answers and grading criteria GitHub2. That is a methodological warning, not evidence that the reported results were compromised, but it is relevant to how readers should interpret benchmark claims.
Open-source release, with support limits
The code is available in a public google-research repository2 under the Apache 2.0 license. The repository says the local demo "requires no model credentials," while model-backed benchmarks require additional dependencies and configuration including Node.js 20+, the Google Cloud CLI and benchmark-specific packages GitHub2.
The repository also says the project is "not an officially supported Google product" and is not eligible for the Google Open Source Software Vulnerability Rewards Program GitHub2. That limits what the repository alone establishes: it documents a public code release and setup guidance, but it is not a support or product commitment.
A social post by @0xForce_ on X4 described Harness² as a "free and open source" agent that "teaches itself to get better at every job" and summarized benchmark gains of "around 11 points." That post is a third-party summary, not independent verification, and the paper provides the more precise numbers and methodology claims arXiv1.
What the current record does not provide is an independent benchmark replication. The public materials available here are the authors' arXiv paper, project page and repository, plus a social-media summary. The paper establishes what Google Research is claiming, including baselines and headline gains, but not whether those gains hold under outside testing arXiv1.
For practitioners, the most concrete point is narrower than the promotional framing: Harness² is presented as a way to improve agent performance by iterating on the harness around a fixed model, and the authors report measurable gains on WorkBuddy-Bench, JobBench and LAB under the configurations they tested arXiv1 GitHub2. The announcement does not include peer-reviewed validation.