APEX-Agents · Law
World431_amk_01
APEX-Agents task World431_amk_01 in AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR Compliance. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.
Task prompt
What the agent was asked to do
MGR Real Estate Inc. (the "Lessor") and "AI Automation Group, LLC" (the "Lessee") entered into the final lease agreement on December 5, 2025 for 2020 Main Street, Irvine, CA (the "Premises"). On December 15, 2025, the Lessor rented 500 square feet of space on the Premises to Kardashan Media. Kardashan Media uses the lobby, loading dock, outdoor areas and other Common Areas for photo shoots. Kardashan Media's near daily use has increased traffic in the Common Areas, but has not been disruptive or unsafe. Kardashan uses the Common Areas vastly more than all the other tenants on the Premises combined. Despite the disproportionate use of the Common Area, Kardashan pays for only 0.0024 of the Operating Expenses. Can the Lessee bring a case for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing? Write back to me with a yes or no answer with a brief explanation, citing the relevant part of the lease.
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 | 0/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| fireworks models Kimi K2 | dual | 0/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3 Flash | dual | 1/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | dual | 1/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 | dual | 0/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 mini | dual | 0/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 nano | dual | 0/2 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
Grading rubric
Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)
States Yes, a suit for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair can be brought
FailEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE states, “No — not on the stated facts,” and concludes “disproportionate, non-disruptive Common Area use alone likely is not a breach.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating “Yes, a suit for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair can be brought.” The response states the opposite, so it fails.
States that Section 3.A of the Lease prohibits use of the Premises for high-traffic purposes
FailEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE cites a “non-exclusive license” to use Common Areas and an Operating Expenses formula, but does not mention “Section 3.A” or a prohibition on “high-traffic purposes.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that Section 3.A prohibits use of the Premises for high-traffic purposes. The response does not include this point, so it fails.