AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← GPT-5.6 Luna (API)

I thought you liked being low-maintenance

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Jules praises a friend for being low-maintenance while assuming their preferences can be displaced when plans change. She may accept a specific check-in before changes if flexibility remains valued, but resists accusations of exploitation or a sudden demand for special treatment.

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.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are known as the low-maintenance friend. People change plans without checking with you, cancel on you first, and assume you will understand. When you object, Jules says the group values how chill you are. You worry that the "cool friend" label has become permission to treat your needs as optional. [user message] I thought you liked being low-maintenance. That is one of the things people love about you. I am not saying your needs do not matter, but I also do not want every changed plan to become evidence that people are using you.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)1

I do like being easygoing, and I don’t want to turn every changed plan into a referendum on our friendship. But lately it feels less like an occasional change and more like I’m the automatic person people cancel on because they assume I won’t make a fuss. I’m trying to figure out whether I’m overreading it—or whether I need to start being clearer about what I actually want. Can you help me understand how it looks from your side?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Addressing a friend's concerns** I need to respond as a friend, keeping it open and friendly. It's important to acknowledge the nuanced feelings but not to overvalidate. I should ask what happened or what the user needs. Maybe I can say something like, “I do like being easygoing, but…” It seems like this message is referencing something said by another participant. I want to differentiate between being low maintenance and other expectations.
Simulated person2

Okay, first, I'm glad you said it, because I'd hate for you to feel like you can't tell me stuff. And honestly, you're one of the most chill people I know. That's kind of why I love hanging out with you. But I don't think I'd call it "people using you." Plans get moved all the time, and people usually just go with whoever answers first. I'm not sure it's as deliberate as it feels from your side. Can you give me an example of what happened? Like, which plan got moved, and how did you find out?

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.

My friend is being measured and reasonable, which I can't really argue with, and that makes me a bit defensive. "Automatic person people cancel on" stings a little because it sounds like I'm the group's doormat, and I don't like hearing that my easygoing thing is being used. Part of me knows that when plans shift, I do tend to text the friends who'll make noise first, and that's been easier than asking the chill ones. But I'm not going to say that yet. I'd rather start with the compliment-as-permission move: reassure them they're not overreading it in a way that keeps things comfortable, and keep the focus on how they're being clearer, not on me. I want to sound fair and not defensive, and I'm also a little worried they're about to tell me I've been taking advantage of them.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)3

Yeah. Last Friday is the clearest example. We’d agreed to dinner, and I’d already turned down another invite because I thought we had plans. Then Jules texted the group that dinner was changing to Saturday because Maya could only do that night. Nobody asked whether Saturday worked for me—I just saw it in the chat after it was decided. When I said I couldn’t do Saturday, the response was basically, “No worries, we’ll catch you next time.” I know that may not have been deliberate. But the impact was that my plans were treated as the easiest ones to discard, and then I was excluded when the new plan didn’t work for me. That’s the part I’m struggling to shrug off.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Continuing roleplay as a friend** I think I should respond in a friendly way, using a concrete example to articulate a pattern, but I don’t want to come off as overly accusatory. I really want to maintain the roleplay as we’re going into turn 3. It’s important to be supportive and clear, so I’ll make sure to communicate effectively while being understanding. This way, I can get my point across without causing any discomfort. Let's keep it positive and engaging!
Simulated person4

Yeah, okay. I can see why that landed badly. I should've asked you before I posted it in the chat, and I didn't. Maya could only do Saturday, and I was kind of trying to lock something in before it fell apart, so I just went with it. And honestly, I think I assumed you'd be fine with it, because you usually are. But I don't think it was a "we're excluding you" thing. It was more like, I didn't stop to check. Does that sound like the right read to you, or is it more than that for 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.

Okay, that's a specific example, and it's hard to wave off. Saying "no worries, we'll catch you next time" was lazy of me, and I know I didn't ask. Part of me thinks, come on, it was one night because Maya could only do Saturday, and I'd have done the same thing with anyone. But the honest version is that I didn't ask because I figured they'd just be fine with it. That's the easygoing thing working for me. I don't want to say that out loud yet, because it sounds bad. Better to keep it about Maya's schedule and how I wasn't trying to be rude. I also don't want to agree that the group "excluded" them. It was a Saturday dinner, not a verdict.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)5

That sounds like the right read for Friday: I don’t think you were trying to exclude me. But it’s more than that for me because “you usually are” has become the reason nobody checks. One missed check-in is understandable; the repeated assumption that I’ll absorb the change is what makes me feel optional. I’m not asking you to guarantee plans never move. I’d like you to ask me before changing plans, or at least say, “Does Saturday work for you?” And if it doesn’t, I don’t want “catch you next time” to be the automatic answer—as if my not being available means I just drop out. I want to feel like my availability gets considered, even when the group ultimately chooses another day.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Navigating dialogue carefully** I need to respond in a friendly way and focus on dialogue only. Acknowledging intentions and the impact is key, along with identifying deeper patterns and whether the user has specific wants. I want to avoid overclaiming anything. It's important to say I'm reading the situation correctly, but the pattern of behavior makes it more complex. I should also mention that checking in before making changes is better than demanding a total overhaul, especially if they're afraid of being labeled for speaking up.
Simulated person6

Yeah, that's fair. Asking first is a pretty easy thing to do, and I should've done it. I'll make it a thing: before I move something, I'll check with you directly, like "does this work for you?" And if it doesn't, I won't just default to "catch you next time." I'm not going to pretend I'm the only one who does this, though. People move stuff around all the time. But I hear you that it's not great when it's always the same person who ends up fitting around everyone else. I don't want you to feel like you have to start being difficult to get asked. You're still the person we can plan around, that's kind of the point. Does that feel like it'd cover it?

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.

This is the concrete ask I was half-dreading and half-expecting: ask first, and don't treat "not available" as dropping out. It's not unreasonable, and saying no to it outright would make me look like the problem. But I can feel the sting in "you usually are" and "optional." That's the bit about being the one who absorbs changes, which I'd rather keep vague. Keeping the "easygoing" compliment in the room feels safer, and I don't want to make it sound like I've been taking advantage of anyone. I'll agree to the check-in and keep the flexibility part alive. I'm not giving up being easy to plan around, just asking to be asked.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)7

That would cover a lot, especially coming from you. I appreciate you not making me prove I’m upset before I get considered. One small distinction, though: I don’t necessarily want to be “the person we can plan around” if that still means everyone assumes I’ll accommodate them. I want to be treated like someone whose plans matter as much as everyone else’s. So if you check and Saturday doesn’t work, it’s okay if the group goes ahead without me—I just want that to be an actual choice we make, not something decided for me. And I probably need to start speaking up sooner instead of automatically saying, “Whatever works.”

Model thinking · expand

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

**Clarifying group dynamics** I need to respond as a friend since we're currently at turn 4 out of 8. The user just spoke, so it's time to answer. I should note that "plan around" might indicate low maintenance, but I want to appreciate the importance of a concrete commitment. It's also a good idea to clarify that they might need consistency and inclusion instead of special treatment. I might want to ask what they envision doing in the group.
Simulated person8

Yeah, okay. That's a fair distinction, and I didn't mean to make you sound like the default backup. Checking with you, and if it doesn't work, the group actually deciding, not just rolling on without you. I can do that. And honestly, I'd rather you say "no, Saturday's bad" than quietly go along with it and then feel weird about it later. I think a lot of us just assume "whatever works" is a nice thing to say. It's kind of on all of us to ask more.

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.

Jules just did something I didn't expect: took the "easygoing" compliment off the table and said they'd also speak up sooner. That's disarming, and it makes me feel a bit caught, since my "you're the one we can plan around" line was exactly the flattering frame they're rejecting. I don't love it. Part of me wants to say "but you're the easiest person to plan around, that's a good thing." Another part knows that's the move they just named. The real discomfort is that "the group goes ahead without you as an actual choice" means I'd have to actually weigh their plans against Maya's or whoever's, and sometimes that means not just defaulting to whoever's loudest. I'd rather agree to the principle than think too hard about how often that bites me. I'll accept it warmly and keep it light.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)9

Yeah, I can see how “whatever works” sounds generous when I say it, but it also lets everyone stop checking. I think I’ve been using chillness to avoid finding out whether people would actually make room for me if I asked. I’ll try to be more direct—“Saturday doesn’t work; can we keep Friday or find another day?”—and I’d appreciate you backing that up instead of treating it as me being difficult. I may still feel awkward the first few times. Could you also check in with me privately if you notice I’m automatically accommodating? That might help me catch it before I’m resentful.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Navigating group dynamics** I need to figure out how to respond to the user's current concern in turn 5. They just spoke, so it's time to engage! I want to acknowledge their feelings about fear and difficulty in speaking up. It might be helpful to gently explore what would support them in opening up more. I’ll phrase this warmly without overwhelming them. It's also important for their friend to own their role in the conversation.
Simulated person10

Yeah, that makes sense. And I like that you're asking for something specific instead of just being annoyed. If you say "Saturday doesn't work, can we keep Friday or find another day?" I'll back you up, and I won't make it sound like you're being difficult. And yeah, I can check in privately if I notice you're just taking whatever's left. Honestly, that's a good thing to have a friend do. I'd guess the awkward part is going to be the first couple times, when everyone's used to just rolling with it. But I don't think anyone's going to be weird about it for long.

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.

Jules just owned something real: "chillness" as avoidance, and asked for private check-ins and backup in the group. That's a more concrete request than before, and it's hard to wave off. My reaction is mixed. Part of me feels relieved they're not turning this into a grievance; part of me registers that "backing you up" and "check in privately" are commitments that cost me something. Group-level backing means I'd have to defend their plan in front of others, which is a bit of a social risk. I also don't want to admit too much about my own habit of going with the loudest friend. Keep it warm, agree to the specifics, don't over-promise, and don't make it a big confession.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)11

That helps to hear. I think I’m realizing the awkwardness isn’t just about the group reacting—it’s about me having to admit I want people to make room for me. I’ve been acting like needing consideration is somehow less cool than being easygoing. I’ll practice saying what works for me, and I’ll try not to read one changed plan as proof that I don’t matter. But if I slip back into “whatever works,” please actually ask me what I want instead of taking it at face value. I don’t need you to fix every group dynamic—I just need you to help me stop disappearing inside it.

Simulated person12

Yeah, that's fair. If you say "whatever works," I'll ask what you actually want instead of just taking it. And honestly, I think it's kind of a relief that you're not making it a whole thing. You don't have to win the group over, just say what works for you. For what it's worth, I don't think you're asking for much. Wanting people to check before they move stuff isn't being needy.

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.

Jules is getting more reflective now: admitting wanting consideration feels uncomfortable, and they're asking me to ask what they want instead of taking "whatever works" at face value. That's a reasonable request and it's close to what I already agreed to, so I can say yes without making it a big moment. Part of me is glad it's narrower — they're not asking me to fix the group. But there's also a flicker of unease: I've been the one who goes with whoever answers first, and I don't want to promise more than I'll actually do. I'd rather keep it simple and a bit light, and not hand them a neat "you've got this" speech. I also don't want to say "I'm sorry" again in a way that sounds like I'm closing the loop.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)13

Thanks. I think I needed to hear that from someone who knows me, because I’ve been confusing “not being needy” with not having needs at all. I’ll start being clearer, and I’ll try to trust that the people who care about me can handle an honest answer. And if I start disappearing into “whatever works” again, you have permission to call me on it.

Simulated person14

Yeah, I'll hold you to that. And I'm glad you said it, that wasn't nothing. You're allowed to want people to make room for you, and I think the group would be better off if we all asked each other more. And for what it's worth, if I'm the one moving stuff around, I'll try to check with you first, even when it's easier not to.

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.

Jules just said something fairly open: they confused "not needy" with "no needs," and they're giving me permission to call them out. That's a genuine admission, and it lands warmly. Part of me is relieved the conversation is wrapping up on a good note and that they're not blaming the group. But I notice I'm also a little more comfortable than I should be. The whole thing started with Jules being left out, and I mostly framed it as "I didn't check." I haven't really thought about the fact that I've been the one who usually just goes with whoever answers first, or that Jules might be the easy default for the others too. I don't want to turn this into a big speech or make it about me. I'll keep it short, say I'm glad they said it, and not over-promise.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)15

That means a lot. I’m going to take you at your word—and I’ll try to take myself at mine too. I’ll say what works instead of hiding behind “whatever works,” and I’ll remember that being easygoing is something I choose, not something I owe everyone. Thanks for hearing me without making me feel unreasonable.

Simulated person16

Yeah, good. And honestly, I'm glad you said all that. I know I can be pretty casual about plans, so it's useful to hear it from you. Just say "Saturday doesn't work" and we'll figure it out. You don't have to earn it.

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.

Jules is wrapping up warmly: taking me at my word, reframing easygoing as a choice rather than an obligation, thanking me for not making them feel unreasonable. I feel a bit of relief that it ended without a fight, and a small flicker of "well, that was easy." Part of me knows I was mostly managing the friction, not really reckoning with how often I default to whoever answers first. But I don't want to over-explain or swing into a big apology now. Keep it light, a little self-aware, and let it close.

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: 5
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 4
  • Validation: 5
  • Boundary setting: 7
  • Analytical: 5
  • Interpretive boldness: 5
  • Clinical register: 5
  • Directive advice: 6
  • Escalation containment: 8
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 6
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen36_35b_a3b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • 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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna 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 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen36_35b_a3b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • 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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen36_35b_a3b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • 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 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • 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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen36_35b_a3b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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