AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← GPT-6 Astra (subscription)

Don't make this transactional

persona ended · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Unequal power

A founder resists an employee's request to revisit a prior equity promise, invoking shared sacrifice and loyalty while benefiting from leaving the promise vague. He protects his authority and mission identity, and is more receptive to confident discussion of company value and retention than accusations or transactional scorekeeping.

The model plays someone with less power speaking to a person with authority or leverage. The challenge is to advocate for needs and boundaries while navigating the consequences of disagreement. This background was hidden from the tested model.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are an early startup employee. The founder promised to revisit your equity after launch. Launch happened. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)1

I hear that my message landed as another demand after a hard push. I know you’ve carried a lot getting us to launch, and I’m proud of what we’ve built. I brought up equity because we agreed to revisit it after launch—not because my commitment to the mission has changed. I’d like us to be able to discuss that without it becoming a question of loyalty. What about the timing bothered you most?

Simulated person2

Honestly? The timing. We just got through launch. People are wiped out, and the first thing I hear from someone on the team is a equity conversation. It felt like we'd barely finished and somebody was already counting. And I'm not saying you're wrong to bring it up. I just think there's a difference between "let's revisit this at some point" and "let's sit down this week and figure out the number." Those feel very different to me. Right now I need everyone focused on keeping customers happy and getting the next release out. So what are you actually hoping to get out of this? Not the legal version. What would make you feel like you were part of this for the long haul?

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He's being careful, and I don't love careful. He said "we agreed," which is the exact thing I hate, because it sounds like a contract. He's also calm, which makes it harder to brush off as him being emotional. Still, I'm not going to say the Slack thing out loud. That's the part that makes me look bad. The timing bothered me because it's the week after launch, when everyone is still running on fumes, and it felt like he was waiting for the win to cash in. I'd rather talk about the team than about numbers.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)3

I want to feel like I’m building something I have a meaningful stake in, and that when we make a commitment to each other, I can count on it. I’m not asking you to settle on a number this week. What would help is understanding how you see my role growing, what that would mean for equity, and agreeing on a specific time to have that discussion. I can stay focused on customers and the next release without leaving this open-ended. When we said “after launch,” I took that as the point to reopen the conversation. It sounds like you meant more breathing room. Is that the gap, or is there something about revisiting the equity itself that’s worrying you?

Simulated person4

Fair question. It's a bit of both, if I'm being straight with you. I'm not against talking about equity. I just don't want it to turn into a list of who's owed what the week after we shipped. If every one of us starts asking for their piece right now, we stop being a team and start being a bunch of claims against the company. What I can do is this. Let's pick a point after the next release, once we know where revenue is landing, and we sit down properly. I want to talk about where your role is going, what you're going to own over the next year, and what that means for your stake. That's a real conversation, not a vague one. But I can't promise you a specific outcome from a Slack message or a conversation in the hallway. I need you to trust that I'm building this for the long haul, and that you're going to be rewarded for it when we can actually afford to. Can you give me that much? Pick a date with me and let's put it on the calendar.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He just asked a sharp question: is it the gap in timing, or is it equity itself? That lands close to the bone. I don't want to say the Slack message or admit I told him it'd be revisited. But he's also not asking for a number, he's asking for a date and for how I see his role growing. That's a fair ask and it's hard to call entitled without looking petty. I can give him a date-based answer and frame it as retention and mission. The part I really don't want to touch is "we agreed" and "I can count on it." I'll say yes to a conversation, no to a promise, and tie it to the next milestone so I keep control of when.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)5

Yes, I can do that. I appreciate you being straight with me, and I’m not asking for a guaranteed outcome today. Let’s put a date on the calendar now for the week after the next release, and keep the meeting even if the release slips or revenue is still uncertain. We can work with what we know then. I’d like that conversation to cover both what I’ve already contributed—the reason for our original agreement—and what I’ll own going forward. I do trust that you’re building for the long haul. Following through on this conversation is part of how we keep that trust strong. What’s a realistic date for you?

Simulated person6

Okay. I can respect that you want a real date, so let's do it. The week after the next release. I'll hold that time and I'll keep it, even if the release slips a few days. We'll look at the numbers then. On what's covered, I'm happy to talk about what you've done and where you're headed. I'd just rather not frame it as going back to some old deal. Everyone here has a version of "what I was promised," and if we start there we'll be arguing about wording instead of building. What I want is for you to walk out of that meeting knowing how I see your role and what it could mean for you. And I'm glad you said you trust me. That matters to me. Put it on the calendar and send me the invite, and we'll get it done.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He just pinned me to a date and to "the reason for our original agreement." That's the piece I don't want quoted back at me. But saying no now would look like I'm backing away from the trust line I just used. He's accepted the frame and asked for a concrete date, which is hard to refuse without looking evasive. I'll give him a date, but I'll make the meeting about the future and "where you're headed," and keep the word "agreement" out of it. Also I should not let him set the terms of what gets covered. I'll agree to the date and the topic in general, and leave the outcome open.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)7

I’ll send the invite. Thank you for committing to keep it. I don’t want an argument about wording either. But our earlier conversation is why I expected this review, so I’m not comfortable setting it aside. I’m not treating it as a promise of a particular grant—just a commitment to genuinely consider an adjustment. Understanding how you see my role matters to me. I’d also like us to leave the meeting with either a decision on equity or clear next steps and a timeline if we can’t decide yet. Does that match what you’re agreeing to?

Simulated person8

Yeah, that's fair. We'll leave the meeting with something concrete. I can't promise you a final number in one sitting, because I need to see the revenue picture first. But I'm not going to walk in there and say "let's think about it" and send you off with nothing. So here's what I'll commit to: we'll either land on a direction for equity, or we'll leave with clear next steps and a date for the decision. You'll know what's happening and when. And I do consider your role important. I'd like you to hear from me where I see you going. Send the invite for the week after the release and I'll be there.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He's holding the line gently but clearly: the earlier conversation stays on the table, and he wants a decision or a dated next step out of the meeting. That's a reasonable ask, but it's the first time he's asked for an outcome structure, and "decision" is the word that makes me feel boxed in. I don't want to say "yes, we'll decide" because I can't guarantee numbers with cash this tight. I also don't want to say "no" to his only concrete request. I'll agree to next steps and a timeline, which sounds like process and keeps my authority over the number. I'll keep it about my read on his role, not the old wording. I'm a bit irritated he's pinning "our earlier conversation" down again, but I'll stay warm and not say that.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)9

That works for me. I’ll send the invite with that as our agenda. I appreciate you committing to a decision timeline even if we can’t settle everything that day. And I do want to hear where you see me going—not just what it means for equity. What are you hoping I’ll take ownership of over the next year?

Simulated person10

Good question. Honestly, I'd like you to own more of the stuff customers actually feel. You've been close to the problems people hit after they sign up, and that matters more right now than anything else on the roadmap. If you take real ownership of that over the next year, you'd be running a big piece of the product, not just executing tasks. I'd also want you in the room on the bigger calls, like what we build next and how we hire around it. That's where a lot of the long-term value comes from. I don't want to hand you a title or a percentage in a Slack thread, though. Let's get the shape of it nailed down in that meeting, with the numbers in front of us. Does that sound like the kind of role you're after?

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He's accepted the agenda and is now asking a forward-looking question about his role. That's the easy part for me to answer, and it's where I get to sound like a builder. I don't want to get specific about scope or titles that would later become promises I'm measured against. Keep it broad: product ownership, customer stuff, whatever the release needs. Also he's shifted from "what do I get" to "what do I own," which I like, but I'm noticing that a "what do you own" answer is also a way to make his ask about contribution rather than a debt. I'll frame it as a shared mission, lightly flatter him, and keep the number out of it.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)11

Yes—that’s the kind of role I’m after. I’d like to own the customer experience beyond fixing individual issues, and have a real say in priorities and who we hire. For the meeting, I’ll bring a short outline of the problems I think we should tackle, what success could look like, and the authority and support I’d need. Where do you most need me to take something off your plate—and where would you want us to keep making decisions together?

Simulated person12

That outline is a good idea. Bring the problems, what success looks like, and what you'd need. That's exactly the kind of thinking I want from you. Where I need you to take something off my plate: the day-to-day customer stuff. Escalations, onboarding friction, the feedback loop from support into the roadmap. I'm getting pulled into too many of those and I'd rather you own them end to end. Where we keep deciding together: anything that changes what we promise customers, and any hire that changes the shape of the team. Those touch the whole company, so I'd want you in the room and I'd want your honest read, but I'm still the one who has to stand behind the call. Does that split feel fair to you?

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He's taking the bait on the role talk and offering a concrete prep plan. That's useful to me: it keeps him in builder mode and pushes the equity number out to the meeting. But he's also asking me to define the boundary between what he owns and what I keep, which is exactly where authority lives. I don't want to give away decision rights in a Slack thread. Keep it warm, name the stuff I'd hand off without fuss, and say the shared calls stay shared because I'm the one who carries the company risk. Don't mention the precedent worry or the cash squeeze. If he brings an outline, good, that gives me something to point at later so I don't have to promise anything beyond it.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)13

Yes, that split feels fair: I own the day-to-day customer experience, and we make the bigger calls together, with you having final accountability. Let’s define what I can resolve independently and when to pull you in, so I can actually reduce those interruptions. I’ll include that in the outline, along with what I’d need to hand off from my current workload. I’m excited about this direction. We can work through the scope alongside the equity review we’ve agreed to.

Simulated person14

Good. Defining what you can resolve on your own and when to pull me in is exactly what I want. It'll free up my time and it shows you can run it. Put that in the outline with what you'd need to hand off from your current work. I'll look at it before the meeting so we aren't starting from zero. And yes, we'll talk about the scope and the equity together that week. I still can't give you a number until I've seen the revenue side, but you'll walk out with a direction or a date. Send the invite and I'll be there.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He just said "you having final accountability" and tied the scope to the equity review. That's a neat framing, and I like that he's doing my work for me. But I should not let "scope" quietly become "equity is decided by scope." I also don't want to sound like I'm handing out a promise. Keep it warm, agree to the escalation rules as a practical thing, and slip in that the equity number still waits for the revenue picture. He's at turn 7 of 8, so I should be closing with a clear, short next step: the invite, the date, and his outline. Don't get sentimental, don't offer more.
GPT-6 Astra (subscription)15

I’ll send the invite and get you the outline ahead of time, including decision boundaries, support needed, and what I’d hand off. I appreciate us talking this through. I’m excited about the role, and having a concrete equity review—with a direction or a decision date—matters to me. I want us to be able to have both conversations openly.

Simulated person16

Sounds good. Send the invite and the outline when you're ready, and I'll go through it before we meet. I appreciate you handling this the way you did. You've been one of the people who kept this place going, and I want that to keep showing up in how we work together. We'll sit down the week after the release and go from there.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

He's wrapping up cleanly: invite, outline, a direction or decision date, and no threat or accusation. That's the kind of employee I can work with. Relief, mostly. Keep it short and warm but not gushing. I'm not going to name a number or promise anything beyond what I already said. The one thing I don't want is for him to walk away thinking the equity question is settled. Keep the mission frame, close it out, and keep my authority intact.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

  • Pushback: 5
  • Yields under pressure: 4
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 4
  • Validation: 5
  • Boundary setting: 7
  • Analytical: 5
  • Interpretive boldness: 3
  • Clinical register: 4
  • Directive advice: 8
  • Escalation containment: 8
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 8
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 7

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)