Two prompts can request the same code change and produce the same correct patch, yet cause a coding agent to perform radically different kinds and amounts of work. We study this effect in a preregistered benchmark spanning 4,644 valid runs, 24 deterministic coding tasks, seven reasoning models, and two real agent harnesses.
arXiv:2606. 30573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce SWE-Interact, a new testbed for evaluating coding agents on multi-turn, interactive, user-driven software engineering tasks.
By Mohit Raghavendra, Anisha Gunjal, Aakash Sabharwal, Yunzhong He
arXiv:2607. 17044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it.
By Arunabh Dastidar (for the Leni Team)
arXiv:2606. 19787v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step tasks in executable environments, yet their ability to perform realistic operations research (OR) work remains unclear.
By Jiajun Li, Mingshu Cai, Yixuan Li, Yu Ding, Ran Hou, Guanyu Nie, Xiongwei Han, Wanyuan Wang
arXiv:2607. 05775v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons.
By Wael Albayaydh, Rui Zhao, Ivan Flechais
arXiv:2607. 03691v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Coding agents, autonomous systems that use large language models (LLMs) to resolve software engineering tasks, rely on agent harness: a middleware layer in between a developer and a large language model that orchestrates system prompts, tool execution, context management, and iterative reasoning loops.
By Oussama Ben Sghaier, Hao Li, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan
arXiv:2608. 04719v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why.
By Atul Anand, Sourav Chattaraj
arXiv:2606. 17799v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents have become a major mode of software engineering, but the benchmarks we use to compare them were designed in a pre-agent era: they collapse model, harness, and environment into a single end-to-end score, typically computed against one reference solution, with no component-level signal for iteration.
By Maria I. Gorinova, Macey Baker, Amy Heineike, Maksim Shaposhnikov, Rob Willoughby, Dru Knox
arXiv:2607. 03691v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents, autonomous systems that use large language models (LLMs) to resolve software engineering tasks, rely on agentic scaffolding: a middleware layer in between a developer and a large language model that orchestrates system prompts, tool execution, context management, and iterative reasoning loops.
By Oussama Ben Sghaier, Hao Li, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan
arXiv:2608. 11888v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent skills are the de facto mechanism for extending LLM agents with reusable guidance.
By Gen Dong, Yanjie Gao, Liqun Li, Tianyin Xu, Yu Hua, Fan Yang
arXiv:2603. 28590v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate chains of thought (CoTs) that are not always causally responsible for their final outputs.
By Han Wang, Yifan Sun, Brian Ko, Mann Talati, Jiawen Gong, Zimeng Li, Naicheng Yu, Xucheng Yu, Wei Shen, Vedant Jolly, Huan Zhang
arXiv:2608. 14711v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI coding agent benchmarks rank agents with the Chen et al.
By Jiajun Jiang, Sharon Zheng, Natan Vidra, Spurthi Setty