This work asks how far a coding agent can go when it controls a robot instead of a computer, and where it stops, and builds a system that keeps what it learns as code, as a coding agent does when it fixes a failing test.
Abstract
Agents built on vision language models (VLMs) now compete with learned policies on robot manipulation leaderboards. We ask how far a coding agent can go when it controls a robot instead of a computer, and where it stops. Our system, HexaShell, keeps the harness thin: it only turns the agent's commands into robot motion. The agent drives a robot with two arms through one command line. It sees three RGB cameras and knows their calibration. After each failed attempt, the agent reads the log, finds the cause, and writes or fixes small programs called tools. In this way it keeps what it learns as code, as a coding agent does when it fixes a failing test. The tools may use only what the robot observes. They use triangulation to find where objects are, relative to each other and to the gripper. If two cameras see the same point, the point lies where the two camera rays meet. If a point lies on a known plane, such as the table or the top of a block, it lies where its ray meets that plane. When the head camera is not enough, the robot moves a wrist camera to get a second view. We build the tools on only ten layouts of one seed per task, then freeze them and test them on ten new layouts of the same seed. We use Codex with GPT-6-Astra at medium reasoning effort. On all 42 RoboDojo tasks, HexaShell reaches a success rate of 39.7% and a progress score of 48.0, averaged in the same way as the leaderboard. This is a new state of the art on RoboDojo. The limit is contact, not reasoning: pushing reaches 92.5% and memory tasks 65.0%, but tight insertion only 8.3%. When the agent fails, it usually sees the failure but cannot make the motion work. We open source the tools evolved so far at https://github.com/HexaFuture/HexaShell.
This work introduces ENCORE, which gives the agent a few demonstrations as evidence to read rather than as training data, and shows that on RoboDojo tasks whose instructions leave the goal unstated, no program succeeds without demonstrations.
Yi-Fan Kang, Zihan Wang, Zhi-Wen Fan et al.· 1 citation
When an off-the-shelf coding agent is used directly as a robot policy, observing a browser-based 3D interface through screenshots and acting by posing a virtual target gripper through a few tools, the agent's harness, its prompts, tools, and control rules, largely determines success, and until now it has been written b...
Zhi-Jie Wei, Ferris Tan, Jing-Hui Wang et al.· 2 citations
Frontier language-model agents can now improve robots on their own: they write control code, test it, and keep what works as skills and memories for the next task. We introduce SEAR (Self-Evolving Agentic Robotics), a framework and benchmark built around two questions. Is the agent really learning, or just trying more...
Xin-Yi Wang, Bang-Zheng Li, Han-Yu Wang et al.· 3 citations
This work evaluates coding agents under a safety constraint, where each task pairs a manipulation goal with an obstacle the robot must not touch, and presents SafeHarness, which equips the model with two obstacle-aware harnesses.
Bing-Xin Xu, Yu-Zhang Shang, Zhen-Han Dong et al.· 2 citations
MAESTRO is used as a coding agent that writes robot programs using a curated library of perception, planning, and control tools and its orchestration harness packages multi-step perception and action procedures into callable tools and guides their use through a plan–act– replan loop.
Jun-Yao Shi, Ru-Jia Yang, Kai-Tian Chao et al.· 0 citations
LLM agents that orchestrate frozen vision-language-action (VLA) policies improve across episodes through text memory, which records what the agent did but not how the task is done. A demonstration video shows it, but fits poorly into an agent's context. The full video slows every turn, fixed keyframes lose the contact...
Wen-Rui Bao, Xin-Xin Liu, Bing-Xin Xu et al.· 1 citation