Agent harnesses -- the stateful programs that wrap a language model and decide what it sees at each step -- are now known to change end-to-end performance on a fixed model by as much as six times. That raises a question asked less often than it should be: how much of an agent's competence does the harness itself already carry, and how much genuinely still needs the LLM? We externalize a planning harness for noisy Collaborative Battleship into four progressively richer layers -- posterior belief tracking, declarative planning, symbolic reflec tion, and an LLM-backed revision gate -- under a common runtime, taking \emph{win rate} as the primary metric and \emph{F1} as secondary, and pre-specifying \emph{heavy lifting} as the single largest positive marginal to the primary metric. Across 54 games, declarative pla nning carries the heavy lifting ($+24.1$pp win rate over a belief-only harness, zero LLM calls); symbolic reflection is mechanistically real but calibration-sensitive, with signed board-level effects up to $\pm0.140$ F1 that cancel on aggregate; and LLM-backed revision ac tivates on only $4.3\%$ of turns with a bounded, non-monotonic effect. The contribution is methodological: once harness layers are made externally measurable, the LLM's role can be quantified as residual rather than assumed central.

翻译：暂无翻译