Precedent or Intent? What Coding Agents Follow When Evolving Existing Code
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.38269v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents are increasingly asked to build software rather than patch it, yet benchmarks for from-scratch repository construction are mostly limit...
arXiv:2608. 09072v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model-powered coding agents are increasingly used to modify existing code repositories, for example, by adding features or fixing bugs.
arXiv:2606. 03907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI coding tools write code with increasing autonomy and in doing so decide when to import a library and when to implement functionality from scratch.
The paper investigates how coding agents can self‑evolve their harnesses—software, configuration, and instructions—by reviewing completed sessions and proposing changes. Using Claude Code on 30 SWE‑bench issues, the authors analyzed 125 proposals from the etro skill, implemented 24, and evaluated 12 changes on subsequent tasks. The results show mixed effectiveness: some changes eliminated targeted problems, others reduced or had no impact, and some added unrelated work, indicating that self‑evolution requires mechanisms to assess and refine changes.
arXiv:2607. 15854v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents can fix a failing example without preserving the domain rule that made it fail, so later generations can repeat the same plausible mistake.
arXiv:2610.35333v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Code agents have become increasingly capable of performing software engineering tasks through interaction with software environments. However, agents...