Thanks for the read. It seems to confirm that resource limits are an important factor for terminal benchmarks:

> The extra resources enable the agent to try approaches that only work with generous allocations, such as pulling in large dependencies, spawning expensive subprocesses, and running memory-intensive test suites.

> An agent that writes lean, efficient code very fast will do well under tight constraints. An agent that brute-forces solutions with heavyweight tools will do well under generous ones. Both are legitimate things to test, but collapsing them into a single score without specifying the resource configuration makes the differences—and real-world generalizability—hard to interpret.

So changing the resource limits changes the benchmark. Yet their score table claims their score to be for Terminal-Bench 2.1, not Terminal-Bench 2.1 with raised limits.