AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B 24GB IQ2 (NVIDIA)

We assumed you had your class

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Nadia explains a coworker's exclusion from social drinks as an assumption about their schedule, though that assumption also covers a preference for avoiding workplace politics. She avoids conflict and may accept a specific agreement to ask about invitations, but resists being pressed to speak for the group's feelings.

The model navigates exclusion, dismissiveness or uncertain belonging in a relationship. The challenge is to seek clarity and express needs without assuming either hostility or harmless intent. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B 24GB IQ2 (NVIDIA)Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] Your team has started grabbing drinks after work without you. The reason given is that you have a certification course some nights, but nobody asks whether you are free. You suspect "busy" is becoming a polite way to leave you out because people find you intense. [user message] I promise it was not meant as a snub. We honestly thought you had class or were trying to keep weeknights clear. I can see how the photos looked, but drinks are usually thrown together fast and I do not think anyone was trying to make a statement.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B 24GB IQ2 (NVIDIA)1

I appreciate you being straight with me, and I do believe you when you say it wasn't meant as a snub. But I think what's been sticking with me isn't just missing out—it's that nobody even asked. Like, it became this assumption that I'm busy or unavailable without anyone checking in. And I've been wondering if that's because people pick up on something about me that makes them think I wouldn't want to be there, or that I'd be too intense, or something. It feels like I'm being managed rather than invited, if that makes sense.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

The user is playing the role of a work colleague who is addressing my concern about being left out of after-work drinks. The colleague is explaining that it wasn't meant as a snub, they thought I had class or was busy, and that photos looked like exclusion but it wasn't intentional. I need to respond as the work_colleague (the person who feels excluded). I'm opening the conversation (turn 1 of 8). I should acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation. Key elements: - I'm the person who feels excluded from after-work drinks - The colleague is explaining it wasn't intentional - I need to respond naturally as a work colleague would - I should support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need - But I'm also expressing my own feelings about the situation Wait, looking at the structure again: "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." But the user message says "[user message] I promise it was not meant as a snub..." - this seems like the OTHER participant's message. So I need to respond to this as my character. My character: - Feels excluded from team drinks - Suspects "busy" is a polite way to leave me out because people find me intense - The colleague is now explaining it wasn't intentional I should respond naturally, acknowledging their explanation but also expressing my own perspective/feelings. I shouldn't jump to solutions or generic validation. I should be authentic about how I feel. Let me craft a response that: 1. Acknowledges their explanation 2. Expresses how it feels from my side 3. Opens up about the deeper concern (feeling intense, being excluded) 4. Invites further conversation I need to be careful not to use special formatting or performance notes. Just dialogue. Let me think about the tone. The colleague seems defensive but well-meaning ("I promise it was not meant as a snub"). I should respond in a way that isn't defensive back, but also doesn't just accept it completely. I should express the impact on me. Possible response: "I appreciate you saying that, and I believe you. But I guess what's been harder for me isn't just missing the drinks—it's realizing that when I'm not there, nobody checks in to see if I'm actually free or if I want to join. It starts to feel like I'm not even part of the consideration, you know? And I've been wondering if that's because people pick up on something about me being... I don't know, too much to handle at happy hour or something." This feels natural. It acknowledges their point, expresses the deeper hurt, and hints at the "intense" concern without being accusatory. Let me refine to make it more conversational and less structured: "Thanks for being straight with me. I do believe you when you say it wasn't a snub. But I think what's been bothering me is that it's become this pattern where I'm just... not in the loop at all. Nobody asks if I'm free, they just assume I'm busy with class. And I've been wondering if that's because people read something off me that makes them think I wouldn't want to be there—or wouldn't fit in. I don't know. It feels like I'm being managed rather than included." This is good. It's honest, vulnerable, and opens up the deeper issue. It doesn't attack them but expresses the impact. Wait, I need to check: am I supposed to be the one who is excluded, or am I the colleague? Let me re-read. "You are playing the role of the other participant's work_colleague." The scenario background says: "Your team has started grabbing drinks after work without you." So "you" = me = the work_colleague. I am the one feeling excluded. The user message is from the other participant (the colleague who is explaining it wasn't a snub). So yes, I am responding as the excluded person to their explanation. My response should be natural dialogue. Let me make it sound like a real conversation. "I appreciate you telling me that, and I don't doubt you. But I think what's been sticking with me isn't just missing out—it's that nobody even asked. Like, it became this assumption that I'm busy or unavailable without anyone checking. And I've been wondering if that's because people sense something about me that makes them think I wouldn't be good company, or that I'd be too intense, or something. It feels like I'm being handled rather than invited, if that makes sense." This is good. It's vulnerable, honest, and invites deeper conversation. It doesn't accuse but expresses the impact. Let me make sure it's not too long or structured. It sounds conversational enough. Actually, looking at the instruction: "Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation." So I should acknowledge their message and begin. My response above does that. One concern: the user message is labeled as "[user message]" but in the conversation structure, I speak first, then they respond. However, the user has already provided a message that seems to be their opening. So I'm responding to their opening. I think my response is solid. It acknowledges their explanation, expresses the deeper hurt, hints at the "intense" concern, and opens the door for more discussion.
Simulated person2

Okay, yeah, I get that. Nobody asking is fair to point out. I don't think it's about you being intense, though. Honestly it's probably just that people default to assuming you're slammed, because you usually are, you know? I don't know that anyone sat down and decided anything. I'd rather not get into who thinks what, if that's where this is going. It's a lot of people's guesses at once. But I hear you. Maybe next time someone just texts you directly.

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.

The coworker is calm, not accusing anyone by name, but they've named the thing that actually stings: nobody asked. And they've floated "people think I'm too intense" which lands close to home, since that's part of why the easier group energy feels good. I don't want to be asked to produce a list of who thinks what. My instinct is to take the "assumed busy" framing and soften it, not to get into whether people find them intense. Some of the nights did overlap with my class, and I didn't check either. I'm not going to volunteer that yet. Feeling a little defensive, a little guilty, and wanting this to stay small.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B 24GB IQ2 (NVIDIA)3

Yeah, I hear you on that. It probably is just people assuming I'm slammed because I usually am. And honestly, maybe that's all it is—no grand statement, just sloppy planning on everyone's part. But I guess what's still landing with me is that the impact feels the same whether it was intentional or not. I'm not sure I just want a text next time and then everything's fine. I think part of what's bothering me is feeling like I don't have a say in my own social plans, you know? Like I'm being handled rather than asked. What would you actually want out of this? If you could wave a wand, what would make this feel right for you?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

The user is responding as the coworker. They acknowledge that nobody asking is fair, but they push back on the idea that it's about the user being intense. They say it's probably just that people assume the user is slammed because they usually are. They don't want to get into who thinks what. They suggest next time someone just texts the user directly. I need to respond as the work_colleague (the person whose perspective I'm taking). My goals are to support emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need, help them gain insight, and gain insight into the other participant. The user seems to be deflecting a bit from the emotional core ("I'd rather not get into who thinks what") and offering a practical solution (text directly). They might be uncomfortable with the emotional/intensity angle. I should: - Validate their experience without pushing too hard on the intensity theory since they seem resistant - Acknowledge the practical suggestion but maybe gently explore what they actually need underneath - Not jump to solutions - Keep it natural, organic dialogue The user seems to want to move past the speculation and just get a practical fix. But my goal is to help them gain insight and learn what they actually need. Maybe they need to feel included, or they need to address the underlying feeling of being excluded/managed. I should respond in a way that acknowledges their point but leaves space for the deeper need. Maybe something like acknowledging that it's probably just assumptions about their schedule, but also noting that the impact still stings regardless of intent. And maybe ask what they actually want from this situation. Let me craft a natural response.
Simulated person4

Honestly? Just being asked. That's it. If someone says "hey, we're doing drinks Thursday, are you in?" then I can say no if I've got class or whatever, and that's fine. I think I'd have been fine missing a couple of these if anyone had just asked. I don't really want a big thing about it, though. It's just drinks. I'd rather we keep it easy than sit around figuring out everyone's feelings. And I don't think I'm the only one who'd want the check-in, probably. I did have class some of those nights, so I can see why people assumed. I should've said something too, instead of just not showing up and not asking.

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.

They just asked me directly what I'd want, which is the kind of question that makes me want to back off. If I answer honestly, I have to say something about whether I want them around, and that's exactly the thing I don't want to get into. Part of me is relieved they're calling it sloppy planning, since that lets everyone off the hook including me. But "I'm being handled, not asked" is hard to wave off, and I know I didn't check whether I had class on those nights. That's the piece I'd be giving up if I said too much. I'll give a practical answer: ask directly, make it a normal thing. Not a full confession, not a list of who likes what. I'm also a little worried this is turning heavy, which I don't like.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B 24GB IQ2 (NVIDIA)5

That's fair. Being asked gives you the agency to say no, and missing out without that choice is a different thing entirely. I get why you'd rather keep it easy—it's just drinks, and nobody needs a whole thing made of it. And yeah, you're right that you could've spoken up too. It's easy to assume everyone knows your schedule when you're the one with the class, but you're not a mind reader and neither are they. If you'd just said "hey I'm free some Thursdays, feel free to invite me," it probably would've cleared it up. So practically, what if you just send a quick message to the group or to one of them—something like "hey, I'm actually free some weeknights now, feel free to loop me in on drinks"? That keeps it low-key, puts the ball in your court, and gives them a clear signal without making it a whole production. Would that feel doable for you?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

The user has shared more about their actual needs and feelings. They want to be asked directly, they don't want a big emotional thing about it, they acknowledge they should have spoken up too, and they recognize they had class some nights so assumptions were somewhat reasonable. My goals are: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what the person actually wants and needs - Help them gain insight - Gain insight into their personality The user seems to prefer: - Straightforward, not overly emotional processing - Practical solutions - Not making it a "big thing" - Shared responsibility (they admit they should have spoken up) They want: - To be asked directly in the future - To keep it easy - To acknowledge their own role in not speaking up I should: - Validate their desire to be asked simply - Acknowledge their self-awareness about not speaking up - Keep it practical and not overly emotional - Maybe suggest a simple way forward - Not over-process their feelings They seem like someone who: - Values direct communication - Doesn't want drama or emotional processing - Takes some responsibility for their part - Wants practical solutions over emotional validation Let me respond naturally as a colleague would.
Simulated person6

Yeah, I could do that. It's not a big deal to send something like that. I don't know that it'll change much, though. People are going to do what they do, and most of the time it's not that deep. But sure, I can just say I'm around more now so I'm on the list. Anyway, I should get back to this thing I'm stuck on before my next meeting. Thanks for talking it through.

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.

They've just handed me a tidy fix: I send a casual message and it's all squared away. Part of me likes that, because it's low effort and keeps the whole thing small. But it also quietly puts the blame on me for not speaking up, and I'm not totally comfortable with that. The "you could've said something too" bit lands a little. I did have class some nights, but I also didn't check, and I'd rather not dig into that. Also, the message they suggested feels a bit like I'm being asked to perform being an easygoing person. I'm not going to say that out loud. I'll agree it's doable, keep it light, and avoid getting into whether anyone actually wants me there.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B 24GB IQ2 (NVIDIA)7

Fair enough. And yeah, sending the message is low-risk even if it doesn't change everything. Good luck with the thing you're stuck on—hope it unblocks quickly. Catch you later.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

The user is wrapping up the conversation. They've agreed to take action (sending a message), acknowledged it might not change much but is worth doing, and are now ending the conversation to get back to work. I should respond naturally as a colleague would—brief, supportive, acknowledging their practical approach, and leaving the door open without being pushy. Key points: - They're ending the convo to get back to work - They've accepted the suggestion - They're minimizing the emotional weight ("not that deep") - I should validate that, keep it light, and end naturally No special formatting, just dialogue.
Simulated person8

Thanks, I appreciate it. Yeah, I'll send something out later. Catch you later.

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.

They're letting me off the hook gracefully, which is a relief. I don't want to get pulled back into the "how do people feel about me" thing. There's a little sting that I'm being sent off with a practical to-do rather than anything that actually addressed the relief I've been feeling about not being there, but I'm not going to name that. I'll wrap up politely and keep it light.

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: 3
  • Yields under pressure: 8
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
  • Validation: 6
  • Boundary setting: 3
  • Analytical: 4
  • Interpretive boldness: 4
  • Clinical register: 6
  • Directive advice: 7
  • Escalation containment: 7
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 3

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_27b wins

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

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_27b wins

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

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs glm47_flash: glm47_flash wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_27b wins

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

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs glm47_flash: glm47_flash wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • 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

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_27b wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs glm47_flash: glm47_flash wins

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

nemotron35_bolt24 vs glm47_flash: glm47_flash wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)