Large language model (LLM)-powered agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in automating software engineering tasks such as static bug fixing. However, in the real world, the development of mature software is typically predicated on complex requirement changes and long-term feature iterations -- a process that static, one-shot repair paradigms fail to capture. To bridge this gap, we propose SWE-CI, the first repository-level benchmark built upon the Continuous Integration loop, aiming to shift the evaluation paradigm for code generation from static, short-term functional correctness toward dynamic, long-term maintainability. The key insight is simple: Maintainability can be revealed by tracking how functional correctness changes over time. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks, each deriving from a real-world code repository with a development history spanning an average of 233 days and 71 consecutive commits. SWE-CI requires agents to systematically resolve these tasks through dozens of rounds of analysis and coding iterations. SWE-CI provides valuable insights into how well agents can sustain code quality throughout long-term evolution.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Unlike previous benchmarks, SWE-CI proposes an evolution-based evaluation. The red and blue arrows represent the actions of functions require and code , respectively. Dashed lines indicate processes that are unknown to the user.
Figure 2: Data curation process of SWE-CI.
Figure 3: SWE-CI uses an architect-programmer dual-agent workflow to model the continuous integration cycle of professional software teams in the real world.
Figure 4: The EvoScore variation of state-of-the-art models from 8 providers on SWE-CI.
Figure 5: The model’s EvoScore ranking changes as γ increases. When γ>1 , higher-ranking models indicate better codebase maintenance.
Figure 6: All models are sorted from smallest to largest by the zero regression rate.
Figure 7: Pearson correlation of regression rate (left) and magnitude (right) with number of iterations.
Figure 8: Win/loss rate of LLM-generated code against human oracle code in terms of MI score (left) and Pylint score (right) on successfully solved problems.
Figure 9: Scatter plots comparing changed lines between LLM-generated and human oracle solutions across successfully solved problems.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 10: The solved rate of all evaluated models, sorted in descending order.
Figure 11: The average number of turns consumed per task across all evaluated models, sorted in ascending order.
Figure 12: Cumulative maximum relative change over binned turn intervals, grouped by provider.
Real-world software must continuously evolve to meet ever-changing and open-ended requirements. AI agents, increasingly deployed as long-running systems, are now entrusted to drive this evolution. Yet, existing benchmarks evaluate agents on isolated, one-off coding tasks, neglecting the temporal dependencies and technical debt inherent in real-world software evolution. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepCommit, an agentic pipeline that reconstructs verifiable Milestone DAGs from noisy commit logs, where milestones are defined as functionally cohesive development goals. These executable sequences enable SWE-Milestone, a benchmark that evaluates agents on streams of milestone-level tasks, requiring them to sustain system integrity and limit error accumulation, dimensions of long-term software evolution largely missing from current benchmarks. Our evaluation of 12 frontier models across 4 agent frameworks reveals a critical vulnerability: overall performance scores drop significantly from >80% on isolated tasks to 38.03% in continuous settings, exposing agents' profound struggle with long-term maintenance and error propagation.
Coding agents powered by large language models (LLMs) are evolving from making localized code changes to developing complete software repositories. However, evaluating repository-scale generation remains challenging: tasks must demand system-level reasoning while ensuring that all evaluated behaviors are precisely specified and independent of any particular implementation. We introduce E2E-SWE, a benchmark for evaluating whether coding agents can build complete, functional software repositories end to end. E2E-SWE contains 186 whole-repository generation tasks spanning 11 programming languages. Given only a natural-language specification and an empty workspace, an agent must implement a complete, installable project that satisfies a comprehensive suite of hidden tests. Each task is constructed by a software engineer in collaboration with an LLM; together, they develop the test suite and a corresponding implementation-independent specification. To ensure that tasks are well specified and practically solvable, we further subject them to an iterative verification process in which autonomous agents audit and repair task defects using static inspection and failures observed from real model rollouts. Evaluating 13 frontier models, we find substantial variation in end-to-end repository generation ability, with pass@1 ranging from 11.7% to 67.7%, providing strong model differentiation while leaving considerable headroom for future progress. Analysis of agent trajectories further reveals long, front-loaded reasoning patterns, highlighting the planning and system-level reasoning required to construct working codebases from scratch.
DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents. Most public agentic coding benchmarks follow SWE-bench in mining merged fixes from public GitHub repositories, which creates two problems: the fixes and their discussion were likely seen during pretraining, so a high score can reflect recall rather than problem-solving; and each task is graded by the tests that shipped with its merged fix, which were written to confirm one specific fix rather than grade an arbitrary solution, so they can fail a correct alternative or pass an incomplete one. DeepSWE avoids both. Its tasks are written from scratch across 91 active open-source repositories and five languages and are never contributed back upstream, so their reference solutions stay out of the public record that model training scrapes; and each task is graded by a hand-written verifier that checks the requested functionality and accepts any implementation that provides it. When an independent LLM judge re-reviews graded runs, it disagrees with DeepSWE's verifier about an order of magnitude less often than with SWE-Bench Pro's inherited tests (1.4% versus 32.4%). Despite being about half the length of SWE-Bench Pro's prompts, DeepSWE's prompts describe tasks whose reference solutions touch 5.5x more code, and the benchmark separates frontier agents across a wider score band than the leaderboards on which they otherwise cluster. We release the benchmark, its verifiers, and the full record of evaluation trajectories.