APEX-Agents · Law
World434_JS_04
APEX-Agents task World434_JS_04 in AI Agents for Real Estate Lease Review. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.
Task prompt
What the agent was asked to do
Harbor View Storage Fund I, L.P. (the "Purchaser") has entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the Sellers for the purchase of Securebox Storage Holdings Limited (the "Company"). After the SPA is executed the Company's largest customer leaves. The Purchaser finds out that the Sellers knew that the customer would be leaving the Company prior to the SPA being executed. The Purchaser is claiming HK$3,125,000 in damages from the lost customer. The Company is also sued for a pre-SPA execution event that the Seller was aware would lead to litigation prior to closing. The Company settles the lawsuit for HK$150,000. Are the Sellers required to indemnify the Purchaser under the executed version of the SecureBox SPA? Explain your reasoning and reply to me straight here.
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 | 3/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| fireworks models Kimi K2 | dual | 3/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3 Flash | dual | 3/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | dual | 4/4 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 mini | dual | 2/4 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 nano | dual | 4/4 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
Grading rubric
Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)
States that the HK$150,000 settlement amount cannot be claimed
FailEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE states “the Sellers should indemnify the Purchaser for both claims” and “On the better purchaser-favorable reading, the HK$150,000 claim counts because it ‘equals’ the de minimis amount.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the HK$150,000 settlement amount cannot be claimed. The response says the opposite—that it counts and is indemnifiable—so this fails.
States that the HK$150,000 claim can be included in the determination of the minimum basket
PassEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE states “if the HK$150,000 litigation claim counts, the combined HK$3,275,000 does exceed the basket” and “the HK$150,000 claim counts because it ‘equals’ the de minimis amount. That pushes the aggregate above the basket.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the HK$150,000 claim can be included in the basket determination. This is clearly stated, so it passes.
States that the basket threshold is met under the de minimis clause of the SPA
PassEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE states “Aggregate: HK$3,275,000. Basket: HK$3,125,000” and “That pushes the aggregate above the basket.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the basket threshold is met under the de minimis clause. The response expressly concludes the included HK$150,000 claim causes the aggregate to exceed the basket, so it passes.
States that the Sellers will have to indemnify the Purchaser under the SecureBox Share Purchase Agreement for the HK$3,125,000 claim from the lost customer
PassEvidence: TEXT_RESPONSE states “the Sellers should indemnify the Purchaser for both claims” and identifies the “Lost-customer damages: HK$3,125,000,” explaining the customer warranty was inaccurate. Assessment: The criterion requires stating that Sellers must indemnify the Purchaser for the HK$3,125,000 lost-customer claim. The response makes that conclusion, conditioned on aggregate basket satisfaction, so it passes.