Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators, yet their reliability in professional assessment tasks that require expert judgment remains unclear. We investigate this challenge in the context of assessing psychotherapeutic interpersonal skills and introduce MIS-Bench, a Multimodal Interpersonal Skills (MIS) benchmark comprising 996 psychotherapy response videos annotated across 8 dimensions of Facilitative Interpersonal Skills. Across 9 MLLMs with multiple modality and prompting settings, we find that current models show only modest agreement with human experts, inconsistent gains from multimodal input, and limited benefits from reasoning-based prompting. To mitigate this gap, we propose MIS-RAFT, a regression-aware fine-tuning method inspired by RAFT and tailored to fine-grained interpersonal skill scoring at one-decimal precision. MIS-RAFT addresses the mismatch between autoregressive token prediction and scalar-valued expert assessment, significantly improving agreement with human ratings. Overall, MIS-Bench reveals a clear gap between general multimodal capability and expert-level interpersonal judgment, while MIS-RAFT offers a promising path toward more reliable model-based assessment.

Recently, Agentic AI has become an increasingly popular field of research. However, we argue that current practices on agent research are far from standard, rigorous scientific research, which makes it hard to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons among and against existing methods. As a result, it is still obscure how different design choices in an agent framework impact its effectiveness, and measuring progress on agent research remains very hard. In this work, we conduct a systematic empirical study on the GAIA benchmark to investigate the impact of different popular design choices within key agent components in a fair and rigorous way. To begin with, we find that the lack of a standard evaluation protocol makes previous works, even the open-sourced ones, not reproducible, and the variance between different random runs is often non-negligible. Therefore, we first introduce a more robust evaluation protocol to make comparisons more stable. Our empirical study then unveils which components and designs, as well as correlations between these designs, are the keys for building effective agents, while others are not and redundant, despite seemingly making sense. With the insights gained from our empirical study, we build and open-source OAgents, a new foundation agent framework that achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source projects, providing a good starting point and guidelines for building effective agents. More importantly, supports various design choices for agent components in a modularized way, facilitating future scientific research on Agentic AI.