SaylorTwift's picture
download
raw
3.54 kB
1/
There are 505 "agent traces" datasets on the Hugging Face Hub (17.6 GB).
I parsed them to answer: what models, which harnesses, what tasks, how long are sessions?
Short answer: most of it isn't people using agents. But the part that is, is very interesting 🧵
2/
By harness:
• 172 paper-reproduction bot runs
• 164 Claude Code
• 66 pi
• 56 Codex
• ~47 other (Hermes, Factory…)
48 of the Claude Code datasets are exact copies of another one. 372/505 have no license.
3/
After deduping, ~12.3k unique sessions in my sample:
• 10.1k synthetic: one generated prompt, one run, done
• 335 benchmark/eval sweeps
• bot runs (sampled)
• ~1.9k real people working with an agent, from ~50 authors
Real usage is ~15% of sessions.
[image: 1_sessions_by_kind.png]
4/
How to tell them apart: real sessions have a conversation.
Synthetic: 93% have exactly 1 user message, 0% interrupts, almost never hit compaction.
Real: 22% single message, 53% have 2–5, 25% have 6+. 24% contain a user interrupt.
[image: 2_messages_per_session.png]
5/
Models in real sessions: mostly closed.
pi: gpt-5.3-codex, gpt-5.4, claude-opus-4.6, fable-5, plus local GGUFs (Gemma-4, Qwen3-Coder, GLM-4.7-Flash)
Claude Code: fable-5, opus-4.8, also Kimi-K2.6 & MiniMax-M3 via proxies
Codex: ~half gpt-5.5
6/
Synthetic dumps are the opposite: almost all open-weight models (DeepSeek-v4, Qwen3.x, GLM, Gemma-4, MiniMax) served through OpenRouter or HF Inference.
Open models mostly show up in generated data, not in people's day-to-day work.
7/
Session size (median / p90), real users:
pi: 4/15 user msgs, 23/174 tool calls, 6/74 active min
Claude Code: 2/13 msgs, 30/143 calls, 13/113 min
Codex: 3/20 msgs, 43/292 calls, 19/89 min
Long tail: 8% of sessions make >200 tool calls.
8/
Context is big: median ~0.5–1M input+cached tokens per session, p90 15–30M.
5–15% of real sessions hit compaction. Median logged cost on pi: $0.53/session, p90 $7.85.
Tool error rate: 4–6% of calls.
9/
What tools do agents use? Boring and consistent:
shell + read + edit + write ≈ 90% of calls in every harness.
Subagents: <1% of sessions. Web search: ~3% of Codex calls. Agents mostly live in the terminal.
10/
What do people ask? (LLM-labelled sample, first message)
pi: understand/explain a repo 20%, extend existing code 15%
Claude Code: build something new 32%
Codex: build new 20%, extend 16%, fix 15%
Domains: dev tooling, ML/AI and web lead. Personal admin ≈ 0.
11/
The most interesting part: follow-ups.
Of messages after the first one:
• 29% new request
• 27% correction ("no, undo that")
• 24% approval ("great, please do")
• 16% answering the agent's question
Most common real message: "continue".
[image: 3_followups.png]
12/
The paper-reproduction bots are their own genre: autonomous loops that reproduce one ICML paper each (code, experiments, logbook, poster).
Median run: 37 min, 106 tool calls. Longest: ~10 days, 1,091 tool calls, ~1 human message.
13/
Takeaways if you want to train agents on this:
• Filter hard: one-shot generated sessions ≠ real usage
• Real signal is in the steering: corrections & interrupts show where the agent went wrong
• Synthetic dumps that run the same prompt across many models are good for comparing models
14/
Method: parsed pi / Claude Code / Codex / Trackio formats, deduped copies by content, labelled ~3.2k prompts with GLM-5.3-Flash (capped per dataset so no single dump dominates).
Caveat: the real set is small, and a few heavy users shape it.

Xet Storage Details

Size:
3.54 kB
·
Xet hash:
4321b716cd801f74afa429001934e6d8c3bb2f2751c783854baca81bf1020ebd

Xet efficiently stores files, intelligently splitting them into unique chunks and accelerating uploads and downloads. More info.