APEX-Agents · Law
World418_AH_01
APEX-Agents task World418_AH_01 in AI Agents for Joint Venture Legal Structuring. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.
Task prompt
What the agent was asked to do
Review the shipbuilding contract ("Contract") and draft assignment agreement for the Contract (the "Assignment"). The Assignment will be used by LNG SHIPPING INC. ("LNG") to assign the Contract to its financial lending institution. Section 3 will be replaced with a set of conditions that the financial lending institution is preparing. The financial institution is also requiring that the Assignment be governed by California law, where it is based. LNG wants to keep the Assignment to a minimal length and complexity. Which sections of the Assignment can be removed without altering the effectiveness of the Assignment or risk allocation? Write me your response here, explaining what you think.
Published trajectories
Agent runs on this task
Curated dual-harness runs (parsed + original sandbox). Best scored run per model.
| Model | Harness | Score | Result | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.5showcase | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| fireworks models Kimi K2 | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3 Flash | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 mini | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 nano | dual | 1/1 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
Grading rubric
Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)
States that Section 4 of the Assignment can be removed without affecting the effectiveness of the Assignment or risk allocation
PassEvidence: The response lists “Section 4 — Builder’s Consent and Acknowledgment, as a full section” under “Sections I would remove or materially collapse,” and states “Builder consent is not a contractual prerequisite for this lender assignment.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether the response states that Section 4 can be removed without affecting effectiveness or risk allocation. Pass, because the response clearly says Section 4 can be removed/collapsed and explains it is unnecessary for effectiveness and potentially inconsistent with the intended risk allocation.