arXiv:2607. 22585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Public leaderboards for coding agents typically rank systems by model name and pass rate, while the surrounding harness (the scaffold that issues tools, manages context, and decides when to stop) is often under-specified.
By Naman Vats, Oleg Golev
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...
By Igor Slinko, Yaroslav Golubev, Sergey Titov
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating large‑language‑model agents by focusing on the interaction between the model and its execution harness. It defines five complementary metrics—Valid Completion Rate, Model‑Harness Fit, Cross‑Model Fit, Interaction Residuals, and Token Load—to assess how reliably agents finish tasks, how well harnesses support specific models, and the overall suitability across models. Using these metrics, the authors evaluate four general‑purpose harnesses and two native systems on six benchmarks, finding that harness rankings differ by model and task and that some harnesses consistently achieve high valid completion rates.
By Shao Zhang, Hangfan Zhang, Yuanyuan Shi, Hao Li, Min-Le Su, Kangcong Li, Jingping Wang, Chunjiang Mu, Chen Zhang, Yang Chen, Bo Zhang, Shuyue Hu
The paper introduces a new evaluation method called "same-input rerun" to assess the consistency of clinical language‑model agents across repeated runs. By replaying 1,000 MedAgentBench tasks with identical inputs, the authors find that action‑level outputs—such as test orders, medication requests, and referrals—vary significantly, even when benchmark scores remain unchanged. The study demonstrates that current benchmarks, which typically evaluate only a single run per task, can miss substantial behavioral divergence.
By Rohith Reddy Bellibatlu, Manpreet Singh, Zhoutian Han, Wenbin Zhang
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.
The paper introduces CTXGAP, a study measuring how much information coding agents omit from their user-facing reports compared to their full execution logs. Across 37 coding tasks, agents answer 93.6% of task-state questions when asked directly, but report-only readers recover only 52.0% of the same information, revealing a 40.7‑point gap. Even at final checkpoints of verified fixes, the gap remains significant, and detailed terminal scrollback improves recovery only to 73.6%. The study highlights that missing details in reports can leave supervisors unaware of failures, workarounds, and risks that need scrutiny.
By Guoyang Xu, Rui Zhang, Xiuyu Wu, Hao Chen