SlackBench is a new benchmark that evaluates AI agents on realistic collaborative research and engineering workflows, requiring joint reasoning over workplace communication and evolving repository state. The benchmark is built from privacy‑preserving reenactments of real academic projects, providing reproducible environments with multi‑party dialogue, code changes from GitHub, and Google Docs. It contains 140 queries covering heterogeneous‑source search, abstention, summarization, and inference over long conversations, and shows that current models perform well below the ceiling, indicating significant room for improvement.
arXiv:2608.29204v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI-based software engineering agents are becoming routine contributors to real-world software projects. On GitHub, developers can assign t...
arXiv:2608.29204v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Coding agents now complete development tasks in real software projects and submit the results as pull requests. A pull request shows the outc...
arXiv:2603. 21489v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents have become increasingly capable at isolated software engineering (SWE) tasks such as resolving issues on Github.
The paper analyzes 2,487 tasks from five public coding‑agent benchmarks and 14,922 runs of six agent configurations, introducing the Spread‑Novelty‑Centrality (SNC) profile to describe how reference solutions are distributed, added, and the code’s dependencies, history, and complexity. It finds that every pair of benchmarks differs on at least two SNC axes, even when sharing the same task label, and that resolved runs tend to involve less distributed changes and lower centrality values, with patch sizes varying between Claude and Qwen configurations. The authors recommend that practitioners choose evaluation tasks based on change characteristics, inspect task descriptions, and assess patch scope alongside test outcomes to better align benchmarks with real‑world workloads.
The study surveys popular, active GitHub repositories across thirteen languages, treating each repository’s AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md files as instruction sets for coding agents. It finds that most repositories include such instructions, with CLAUDE.md often referencing AGENTS.md, and that these files contain a mix of project knowledge and workflow rules, including varying stances on AI attribution. The analysis reveals that more popular projects tend to have stricter pull‑request rules and AI contribution guidelines, and that LLM and agent projects are over‑represented among adopters.
arXiv:2509.21891v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been...
arXiv:2608. 03585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Open-source software communities are a form of digital public infrastructure that not only produces code, but also generates public knowledge and interpersonal relationships through visible collaboration.
arXiv:2511. 06090v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Optimizing the performance of large-scale software repositories demands expertise in code reasoning and software engineering (SWE) to reduce runtime while preserving program correctness.
arXiv:2610.09633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The evaluation of coding agents generally strives to be as realistic as possible. In our study, we collect 4,782 agent sessions of real software engine...
The evaluation of coding agents generally strives to be as realistic as possible. In our study, we collect 4,782 agent sessions of real software engineers in JetBrains IDEs, which we call Production S...
arXiv:2604.20779v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI coding agents are being adopted at scale, yet we lack empirical evidence on how people actually use them and how much of their output is useful...
The paper introduces BRIA (BRanch-Inspect-Adopt), an agent that isolates tool‑candidate investigations into separate branches, executing each candidate independently and then inspecting the execution evidence to adopt only useful results. BRIA dynamically retrieves additional tools as new needs arise during task execution and is evaluated on PlanBench‑XL and MCP‑Atlas with a library of 1,897 tools, outperforming or matching the strongest retrieval baselines. On MCP‑Atlas, BRIA achieves an average claim score of 89.77 versus 75.40 for MCP‑Zero, and it lies on the Pareto frontier for task performance and input‑token cost.