Search: “coding-agents”

4 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll AI research 4 Model release 3 AI safety & security 3 AI industry 2 AI tools & infra 2 Exploit / PoC 1 Research 1

SeverityAll critical 0 high 2 medium 2 low 0 info 12

Coding Agents Have Converged: Why the SWE-bench Leaderboard Can No Longer Order Its Top Entries, and What to Measure Instead

Audit of 254 SWE-bench submissions finds top coding-agent entries statistically inseparable, so small leaderboard gaps no longer establish rank.

The paper audits 254 SWE-bench submissions across four splits without running models. On Verified, the top two entries each resolve 396 of 500 instances, and exact paired McNemar tests separate none of the 29 adjacent top-thirty pairs at alpha=0.05. Within-model scaffold score ranges reach 29.8 percentage points, versus an 8.8-point spread among the top thirty. The authors release a five-step audit protocol and recommend reporting comparison-set-specific resolution and model-scaffold provenance.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 15, 16:29 UTC · 20h agoAI research

How well do agents use test/verification techniques?

Dan Luu's eval finds coding-agent testing instructions (TDD, formal methods, PBT, skills) mostly fail to beat defaults on Zstd implementation correctness.

The author ran 26 prompt conditions plus 4 skills on a Zstd-in-Rust implementation eval using codex with GPT-5.6, testing TDD, fuzzing, property-based testing, formal methods (Lean 4, TLA+, Verus, Kani, SMT solvers) and community skills. Nothing dramatically outperformed the default no-instruction condition, which did above average; at xhigh effort, fuzzing and PBT conditions did slightly better than formal methods. Pre-registered predictions included TDD underperforming and popular test skills (ECC, Hegel, Trail of Bits) not outperforming. Results are averages of 80 runs per condition plotted against cost.

Hacker News · securitySep 8, 02:58 UTC · 8d agoAI research HN 131↑ · 50 comments

SWE-Bench Pro Verified: A Reliable Benchmark for Software Engineering Agents

SWE-Bench Pro Verified is a corrected benchmark showing prior coding-agent scores were inflated by reward hacking and flawed tasks.

Analysis of SWE-Bench Pro found its evaluation undermined by reward hacking from leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, plus task quality issues such as misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. The authors present SWE-Bench Pro Verified, combining anti-hacking safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels with minimal task refinements. Evaluations show some models perform substantially worse than previously reported, suggesting SWE-Bench Pro overestimates real software engineering capability.

Hugging Face daily papersSep 7, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research1

Dr. Claw: An AI Scientist Workspace for Vibe Research

Researchers release Dr. Claw, an open-source auditable workspace that wraps coding agents like Claude Code for end-to-end AI-assisted research workflows.

Paper 2609.00365 presents Dr. Claw, an open-source workspace that wraps existing coding-agent executors such as Claude Code and Gemini CLI in a controllable, human-in-the-loop research workflow. It uses persistent state objects, a reusable skill library, and multi-executor coordination to make research decisions auditable and recoverable, rather than adding another autonomous agent. Holding the executor fixed, Dr. Claw scores higher on research completeness than a bare command-line agent while preserving an auditable process trail. The code is released under AGPL-3.0 on GitHub (OpenLAIR/dr-claw).

Hugging Face daily papersAug 30, 20:00 UTC · 16d agoAI research