agentleFS
allenaiallenai/vla-evaluation-harness/AGENTS.md

vla-evaluation-harness

AGENTS.md677 starsChanged 8 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

This file provides context for AI coding assistants working on this repository. vla-evaluation-harness (vla-eval) is a unified evaluation framework for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models across 11+ robot simulation benchmarks. Models integrate once, benchmarks integrate once, and the full cross-evaluation matrix works automatically. Core design: Model server communicates with benchmark (Docker container, with optional GPU access for rendering) via WebSocket + msgpack binary protocol. This decouples model dependencies from benchmark dependencies entirely. Line length is 119 (configured in pyproject.toml for ruff and…

  • Where files are headingNew AGENTS.md files have more rules about keeping secrets out of the code, and fewer about code style.

    Of the AGENTS.md files we read, the 31,700 first seen in the last six months, against the older ones: the kind of rule that gained most share, and the kind that lost most. About files like this in general, not this one, and an estimate, since a kind is a pattern in the words.

  • In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this AGENTS.md into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use vla-eval run --record-video to enable mp4s for all benchmarks without editing YAML.

    line 66
  2. Very specific:

    Read CONTRIBUTING.md before any integration work (adding benchmarks/model servers, PR workflow).

    line 73

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 40,246 AGENTS.md files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md

This file provides context for AI coding assistants working on this repository.

Project Overview

vla-evaluation-harness (vla-eval) is a unified evaluation framework for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models across 11+ robot simulation benchmarks. Models integrate once, benchmarks integrate once, and the full cross-evaluation matrix works automatically.

Core design: Model server communicates with benchmark (Docker container, with optional GPU access for rendering) via WebSocket + msgpack binary protocol. This decouples model dependencies from benchmark dependencies entirely.

Commands

# Setup
uv sync --python 3.11 --all-extras --dev

# Quality (CI runs these on every PR)
make lint          # ruff check --fix + ruff format
make check         # ruff check + ruff format --check + ty check (no auto-fix)
make test          # uv run pytest

# Single test
uv run pytest tests/test_protocol.py -v
uv run pytest tests/test_protocol.py::test_name -v

# Smoke tests (model servers, benchmarks, config validation)
vla-eval test                                       # validate configs only (fast, default)
vla-eval test --all                                 # run all categories (validate + server + benchmark)
vla-eval test --list                                # show available tests + prerequisites
vla-eval test --server                              # smoke-test all model servers
vla-eval test --benchmark                           # smoke-test all benchmarks
vla-eval test -c configs/model_servers/cogact.yaml  # smoke-test a specific config
make smoke                                          # shortcut for vla-eval test --all

Line length is 119 (configured in pyproject.toml for ruff and ty).

Architecture

CLI (cli/main.py)
 └─ Orchestrator (orchestrator.py)
     ├─ Benchmark (benchmarks/base.py)  ── runs inside Docker container
     │   └─ EpisodeRunner (runners/)    ── sync, live, or vector (VectorStepBenchmark: num_envs at once)
     │       └─ Connection (connection.py) ←─ WebSocket/msgpack ─→ ModelServer (model_servers/base.py)
     ├─ ResultCollector (results/collector.py)  ── in-memory aggregation for stdout summary
     └─ RecordingStore (recording.py) ── SQLite (one per eval) capturing step rows + per-episode results

Key design decisions

  • Episode-level error isolation: One episode failure never aborts the entire evaluation.
  • anyio-based async: asyncio-compatible, not trio. Use anyio primitives for new async code.
  • Parallel evaluation: Environment parallelism via episode sharding (a work_queue table in the shared recording DB) + inference parallelism via batch forward passes.
  • Recording goes through SQLite: one recording-<eval_id>.sqlite stores run identity/reporting settings, benchmark metadata, episodes, and steps. DELETE journaling + EXTRA sync and explicit transactions serialize shard/model-server writes; json_patch unions fields for the same (sid, eid, step_id). Shared storage must support SQLite file locks and sync.

Recording flow

Benchmark entries write raw rows to <output_dir>/recording-<eval_id>.sqlite by default:

  • Recording defaults to record_step: true and record_video: false. The optional benchmark config's top-level recording: key (sibling of params) overrides that policy. The orchestrator reads this dict (output_dir, filename_stem, record_video, record_step, video_fps) and builds the recorder. Benchmarks are not involved in recording policy; they only decide what to record (which obs frame, which step fields).
  • Benchmark calls recorder.record_video(frame) / recorder.record_step(row); the recorder buffers per-episode and flushes in one transaction at episode end.
  • filename_stem (default "{benchmark_safe_name}/task{task_idx:04d}_ep{episode_id:04d}_{status}") is a str.format template against the task dict's serializable fields + {status} plus orchestrator-injected keys (benchmark_safe_name, task_idx, episode_id). task_idx is assigned before shard filtering, and episode_id is the raw run episode id. The orchestrator validates it against the first task at startup so a typo fails fast.
  • Model server (optional, used by external callers like a training pipeline) receives (sid, eid, eval_id, db_path) in the EPISODE_START WS payload and opens a vla_eval.recording.StepRecorder to push its own step rows. Field-union with the benchmark's rows is automatic via SQLite json_patch.
  • vla-eval export DB [-o DIR] exports a consistent snapshot to episode JSONL and aggregate JSON (default: DB parent). Saved run metadata supplies tracker identity/config. Single-shard runs export automatically; scripts/run_sharded.sh exports after wait.
  • Use vla-eval run --record-video to enable mp4s for all benchmarks without editing YAML.
  • vla-eval run --no-save skips recording entirely (in-memory only).

Tracking

Optional sibling to recording: top-level tracking.report_to: wandb (or list / "all") in the eval YAML mirrors aggregate metrics to wandb/trackio. Backend settings come from native env vars (WANDB_*, TRACKIO_*); the harness only injects eval_id + resume="allow" so live and export paths converge on the same run. Per-episode tracking fires on the live path only; sharded mode defers aggregate emission to vla-eval export. See the README "Observability" section.

Read CONTRIBUTING.md before any integration work (adding benchmarks/model servers, PR workflow).

Agent skills

Shared skills live in skills/; use the relevant SKILL.md for benchmark/model integration or evaluation runs. Paths in skills refer to the target harness checkout, not the installed skill directory.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.