Mark Müller

Thibaud Gloaguen, Niels Mündler, Mark Müller et al.

A widespread practice in software development is to tailor coding agents to repositories using context files, such as AGENTS.md, by either manually or automatically generating them. Although this practice is strongly encouraged by agent developers, there is currently no rigorous investigation into whether such context files are actually effective for real-world tasks. In this work, we study this question and evaluate coding agents' task completion performance in two complementary settings: established SWE-bench tasks from popular repositories, with LLM-generated context files following agent-developer recommendations, and a novel collection of issues from repositories containing developer-committed context files. Across multiple coding agents and LLMs, we find that context files tend to reduce task success rates compared to providing no repository context, while also increasing inference cost by over 20%. Behaviorally, both LLM-generated and developer-provided context files encourage broader exploration (e.g., more thorough testing and file traversal), and coding agents tend to respect their instructions. Ultimately, we conclude that unnecessary requirements from context files make tasks harder, and human-written context files should describe only minimal requirements.

Thibaud Gloaguen, Niels Mündler, Mark Müller et al.

Coding agents are increasingly deployed to autonomously maintain software, including to resolve user-reported issues: a bug report comes in and the agent creates a patch to address it. However, in any real-world deployment, they will encounter stale bug reports about issues that have already been resolved. Agents should recognize this and abstain from modifying the code to avoid accumulating technical debt. To systematically evaluate whether current agents do so, we introduce FixedBench, a code benchmark with 200 human-verified coding tasks in which no code changes are required, testing five recent models across four agent harnesses. We find that even state-of-the-art models fail, proposing undesirable changes (excluding tests and documentation) in $35$ to $65\%$ of cases. Explicit instructions to reproduce the issue before patching partially address this issue but introduce a new failure mode: when an issue is partially fixed, they abstain even though a patch would still be needed. More broadly, our results indicate that LLMs fall prey to an action bias: they choose to act even if inaction would be appropriate. To break this pattern, inaction needs to be explicitly framed as a path to success, which highlights an overreliance on human guidance implicit in current training objectives.