Recent advances in AI-assisted programming have empowered agents to execute complex workflows via command-line interfaces, however, existing benchmarks are limited by short task horizons, data contamination from GitHub scraping, and a lack of fine-grained evaluation metrics, fail to rigorously evaluate the long-horizon planning and execution capabilities essential for realistic software engineering. To address these gaps, we introduce LongCLI-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate agentic capabilities across long-horizon, realistic, sequential engineering tasks. We curated 20 high-quality, long-horizon tasks from over 1,000 computer science assignments and real-world workflows, covering four engineering categories: from scratch, feature addition, bug fixing, and refactoring. LongCLI-Bench employs a dual-set testing protocol, which measures requirement fulfillment (fail(→)pass) and regression avoidance (pass(→)pass), and incorporates step-level scoring to pinpoint execution failures. Extensive experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art agents achieve pass rates below 20% in LongCLI-Bench. Step-level analysis further indicates that the majority of tasks stall at less than 30% completion, highlighting that critical failures often occur in the early stages. Although self-correction offers marginal gains, human-agent collaboration through plan injection and interactive guidance yields significantly higher improvements. These results highlight that future research must emphasize the development of synergistic human-agent workflows alongside advances in agents’ planning and execution capabilities to overcome key challenges in long-horizon task performance.

State-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) require massive scaling that limits practical deployment. Small-scale VLMs offer a practical alternative but face out-of-domain (OOD) collapse when trained with traditional supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Through GeneralPoints experiments, we identify that OOD collapse is due to SFT’s tendency to induce visual hallucinations under distribution shifts, whereas Reinforcement Learning’s (RL) bidirectional reward-driven mechanism with iterative error correction refines visual perception. Although RL-based post-training effectively mitigates OOD degradation, it faces a critical sparse reward dilemma in complex visual reasoning tasks. To this end, we propose Curriculum Reinforcement Finetuning (Curr-ReFT), comprising two sequential stages: (1) Structured Curriculum Reinforcement Learning, which progressively evolves task formats and reward functions to match models’ growing capabilities; and (2) Rejected Sampling-based Self-improvement, which maintains the fundamental capabilities of VLMs through selective learning from high-quality examples. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Curr-ReFT achieves state-of-the-art performance across various visual tasks in both in- and out-of-domain settings and benchmarks.