Yu‐Fan Huang

Spandan Garg, Benjamin Steenhoek, Yufan Huang

Current benchmarks for evaluating software engineering agents, such as SWE-Bench Verified, are predominantly derived from GitHub issues and fail to accurately reflect how developers interact with chat-based coding assistants in integrated development environments (IDEs). We posit that this mismatch leads to a systematic overestimation of agent's capabilities in real-world scenarios, especially bug fixing. We introduce a novel benchmarking framework that transforms existing formal benchmarks into realistic user queries through systematic analysis of developer interaction patterns with chat-based agents. Our methodology is flexible and can be easily extended to existing benchmarks. In this paper, we apply our testing framework to SWE-Bench Verified, the TypeScript subset of Multi-SWE-Bench and a private benchmark, SWE-Bench C# and transform formal GitHub issue descriptions into realistic user-style queries based on telemetry analysis of a popular chat-based agent interactions. Our findings reveal that existing benchmarks significantly overestimate agent capabilities for some models by >50% over baseline performance for public benchmarks and ~10-16% for our internal benchmark. This work establishes a new paradigm for evaluating interactive chat-based software engineering agents through benchmark mutation techniques.

Hankun Dai, Maoquan Wang, Mengnan Qi et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to programming tasks, ranging from single-turn code completion to autonomous agents. Current code agent designs frequently depend on complex, hand-crafted workflows and tool sets. However, this reliance on elaborate scaffolding presents several challenges: agent performance becomes overly dependent on prompt tuning and custom design choices, heavy human intervention obscures a model's true underlying capabilities, and intricate pipelines are costly to build and maintain. Furthermore, optimizing complex task prompts increases the risk of data leakage. Currently, when introducing new models, LLM providers like OpenAI and Anthropic often publish benchmark scores to demonstrate their models' coding proficiency, but keep their proprietary evaluation frameworks confidential. To address these limitations, we introduce Lita (Lite Agent), which operationalizes liteness, a principle of minimizing manual design while retaining the essential elements of a fully autonomous agent. Lita enables a more faithful and unified evaluation without elaborate scaffolding. Experiments on the Aider Polyglot and SWE-Bench with frontier models demonstrate that Lita achieves competitive or superior performance compared to workflow-based and agentic baselines. Crucially, Lita also consumes fewer tokens and requires significantly less design effort. Our results suggest that Lita is sufficient to reveal the underlying coding competence of modern LLMs. Finally, we propose the Agent Complexity Law: the performance gap between agents of varying complexity, from simple to sophisticated designs, will shrink as the core model improves, ultimately converging to a negligible difference.