Tracking Issue: expand benchmark coverage

Goal

Track how PowerContext expands its benchmark coverage without creating a separate execution stack for every benchmark.

Existing E2E infrastructure, including Harbor, ACP, and containerized execution, should be the starting point where it fits. A benchmark may reuse upstream Harbor content, be represented as a Harbor task, or use another approach when its native structure calls for one. The integration should preserve the benchmark's original intent, inputs, and evaluation semantics.

Our current priority is to add more benchmark and evaluation workloads through the Harbor-backed E2E harness, using it as a shared basis for community evaluation.

Principles

We should prefer benchmarks that are recognized or used by comparable memory, context, or agent projects.

Each proposal should explain why the benchmark is relevant to PowerContext, whether the comparison can be fair, and whether the result is clear and measurable. The exact execution and evaluation shape may differ between benchmarks.

Community contributions should focus on a small, runnable validation rather than a complete evaluation. Contributors are not expected to cover the full runtime or inference cost.

After a benchmark is accepted, maintainers may run the complete evaluation or a useful subset. Published results should state what was run and should not present a partial run as a complete benchmark result.

Tracking

• Review candidate benchmarks and their use across comparable projects.
• Identify which parts of the existing E2E and Harbor infrastructure can be reused.
• Define a lightweight contribution path for adding a benchmark.
• Review fairness and quantitative evaluation for each proposal.
• Preserve the source benchmark's semantics when adapting it to PowerContext.
• Decide the appropriate full or partial evaluation scope after adoption.
• Add and evaluate accepted benchmarks.

This issue tracks benchmark adoption and shared infrastructure. Benchmark-specific design and execution details belong with each benchmark.

Migrating the existing full LoCoMo and SWE-bench Pro suites is out of scope for now. They should keep their current workflows so this work does not disrupt existing evaluation paths. This does not decide whether they should be consolidated under E2E later.

Start by reading the existing E2E and Harbor-backed harness, including the ACP and containerized execution paths mentioned in the issue. Review candidate benchmarks and define a small runnable validation that preserves the source semantics, supports fair measurable evaluation, and makes its partial or complete scope explicit.