Language model (LM) agents have driven substantial progress in automated software engineering (SWE), yet building and testing software repositories at scale remains a largely manual and labor-intensive bottleneck. In this work, we introduce RepoLaunch, a novel agentic framework that automatically resolves dependencies, compiles source code, and extracts test results across diverse programming languages and operating systems. RepoLaunch achieves a 78% build success rate, outperforming the Python/Linux-only prior system by 18%. To demonstrate its application, we further present a fully automated pipeline for SWE dataset creation driven by RepoLaunch, which only requires human input at the task-design stage. RepoLaunch is open-sourced, and its automated task-generation pipeline has been adopted by several recent works on agentic benchmarking and training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: RepoLaunch Pipeline.
Figure 2: RepoLaunch-Automated SWE Dataset Creation. Green blocks are steps automated by RepoLaunch. In the figure, Cross-Platform Code Migration Bench is our future work, also an SWE benchmark with task instances created by RepoLaunch.
Language
Total
Verification
Build
Management
Validation
Python*
1200
693 / 57.8%
528 / 76.2%
–
100 / 18.9%
JS/TS
1200
460 / 38.3%
410 / 89.1%
378 / 92.2%
204 / 54.0%
C/C++
1000
392 / 39.2%
310 / 79.1%
264 / 85.2%
066 / 25.0%
C#
800
251 / 31.4%
231 / 92.0%
220 / 95.2%
078 / 35.5%
Java
800
323 / 40.4%
252 / 78.0%
237 / 94.0%
102 / 43.0%
Go
500
213 / 42.6%
154 / 72.3%
146 / 94.8%
098 / 67.1%
Table 1: The number and ratio of instances retained at each stage from the last stage for each language on Linux and the overall result on Windows. Python* data were referred from an old version of RepoLaunch in prior works contributed to the SWE-bench-Live Python subset in July and August 2025, where test log parsing adopted the rule-based pytest-format parser of SWE-bench [ 3 ] , so it does not have the Management step.
Figure 3: The proportion of different failure patterns in the Build and the Management stage .
Table 2: Comparison of benchmarking results. (a) Success rate of agents averaged across the 6 LMs and 6 languages; (b) Success rate of LMs averaged across the 4 agents and 7 splits (6 splits of 6 languages on Linux and 1 Windows task split); (c) For each split, the best-performing combination of agents and LMs.
Table 4: Average token usage and cost of RepoLaunch per instance for each language and each stage. The experiments were done using GPT-5-Thinking-Medium. Python data were referred from an old version of RepoLaunch in prior works contributed to SWE-bench-Live Python tasks, which adopted a rule-based pytest-format parser to parse test logs, so it does not involve the Management stage .
Figure 4: Scalability of RepoLaunch when repo size grows. Each of the five repo size ranges contains 75 repos.
Failure pattern
C/C++
C#
Java
TS/JS
Go
Rust
Win
Build Stage
Repo not at production
9.7%
12.4%
14.5%
20.7%
10.8%
17.6%
11.3%
Incomplete test framework
7.8%
6.2%
4.8%
4.6%
4.3%
9.9%
1.4%
Require API key
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.6%
3.6%
0.0%
0.7%
Require database / docker backend
0.0%
9.9%
1.2%
5.1%
8.6%
3.3%
1.4%
Command timeout / out of memory
61.2%
25.9%
10.8%
20.3%
36.7%
22.0%
20.4%
Appendix
Table 5: Failure Pattern per Language and for Windows in Build and Management stages. The highest two values in each column for Build stage and the highest one value in each column for Management stage are bolded.
instance_id
language
instance_id
language
jqlang__jq-2235
C
apache__druid-13704
Java
jqlang__jq-2681
C
apache__druid-14136
Java
jqlang__jq-2919
C
apache__druid-16875
Java
micropython__micropython-10095
C
apache__lucene-11760
Java
micropython__micropython-13039
C
apache__lucene-12626
Java
micropython__micropython-15898
C
apache__lucene-13704
Java
Appendix
Table 10
Language
Agent
Build
Management
Validation
Manage&Val
Python
RepoLaunch
81.0% (34/42)
94.1% (32/34)
87.5% (28/32)
82.4% (28/34)
Python
SWE-agent
52.4% (22/42)
–
–
63.6% (14/22)
C/C++
RepoLaunch
81.3% (13/16)
100% (13/13)
92.3% (12/13)
92.3% (12/13)
C/C++
SWE-agent
62.5% (10/16)
–
–
30.0% (3/10)
Java
RepoLaunch
73.3% (11/15)
81.8% (9/11)
88.9% (8/9)
72.7% (8/11)
Java
SWE-agent
66.7% (10/15)
–
–
40.0% (4/10)
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison of RepoLaunch against the baseline SWE-agent, a general-purpose SWE agent equipped with only bash and file-editor tools, on the repo build and management task to reconstruct task environments and extract test statuses for SWE-bench instances [ 3 , 5 , 20 ] . Here Manage&Val means Management&Validation combined success rate from the Build result. RepoLaunch effectively surpasses the baseline SWE-agent on both the Build and Management stages.
Method
Type
Python
C/C++
Java
JS/TS
Rust
Go
RepoLaunch
agentic
81.0 % (34/42)
81.3 % (13/16)
73.3 % (11/15)
84.4 % (27/32)
70.0 % (14/20)
81.5 % (22/27)
repo2run
agentic
59.5% (25/42)
–
–
–
–
–
CXXCrafter
agentic
–
68.8% (11/16)
–
–
–
–
SWE-agent
agentic
52.4% (22/42)
62.5% (10/16)
66.7% (10/15)
68.8% (22/32)
65.0% (13/20)
66.7% (18/27)
pipreq
rule-based
40.5% (17/42)
–
–
–
–
railpack
rule-based
23.8% (10/42)
31.3% (5/16)
20.0% (3/15)
34.4% (11/32)
35.0% (7/20)
44.4% (12/27)
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of different repo build methods on building repo-commit pairs of SWE-bench instances [ 3 , 5 , 20 ] . repo2run, CXXCrafter, pipreq and railpack do not have a test case extractor, so only the Build stage is evaluated and the Management stage performance cannot be compared. RepoLaunch achieves state-of-the-art performance on all languages.
Method
Statistic Source
Cost in USD
Build Success Rate
RepoLaunch
from our experiment
0.65
76%
repo2run
from our experiment
0.70
60%
swe-rebench
[ 18 , 29 ]
0.10
20~30%
OpenSWE
[ 19 ]
19.1
~50%
Appendix
Table 9: Average LM API cost in USD per instance to build Python repos. RepoLaunch is cost-effective to build Python repos while achieving the highest success rate.
Experiment
Build Success
Management Success
Verification Success
Avg. Build Steps
Avg. Manage. Steps
Linux
search + prompt + image + str-replace-editor #
84.9% (129/152)
89.9% (116/129)
92.2% (107/116)
23.8
21.1
Baseline (search + prompt + image)
79.6% (121/152)
88.2% (108/121)
91.5% (99/108))
25.0
21.8
w/o web search
71.7% (109/152)
85.3% (93/109)
91.4% (85/93)
27.7
25.1
w/o language-specific prompt
72.3% (86/152)
80.2% (69/86)
84.1% (58/69)
26.1
24.7
w/o language-specific image ∗
67.1% (102/152)
88.2% (90/102)
91.1% (82/90)
31.1
22.5
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation results on Linux and Windows. The baseline is the setting adopted in other experiments in the paper. # The string-replace-editor tool is the tool to edit file contents in the repos. As RepoLaunch is used to build environments for SWE tasks at base commits with issues, by default the file editor tool is disabled to prevent the agent from fixing the bugs originally in the repos. * When language-specific image is disabled, RepoLaunch builds all repos from a raw Ubuntu (for Linux) or Windows-Server (for Windows) base image with no other dependencies installed.
Model
Agent
Build success
Management success
Validation Success
Manage&Val success
Claude-Sonnet-5
RepoLaunch
90.8 % (138/152)
95.7% (132/138)
96.2% (127/132)
92.0 % (127/138)
Claude-Sonnet-5
SWE-agent
81.6% (124/152)
-
-
64.5% (80/124)
Claude-Sonnet-5
repo2run*
69.0% (29/42)
-
-
-
Deepseek-v4-Pro
RepoLaunch
84.9 % (129/152)
92.2% (119/129)
89.1% (106/119)
82.1 % (106/129)
Deepseek-v4-Pro
SWE-agent
77.6% (118/152)
-
-
63.6% (75/118)
Deepseek-v4-Pro
repo2run
71.4% (30/42)
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 11: RepoLaunch is robust when driven by different LM providers. RepoLaunch and SWE-agent are evaluated on the whole multilingual benchmark in Appendix F.1 on both Build and Manage&Val stages. * repo2run can only run on the Python subset of the benchmark on the Build stage.
id
repo
language
id
repo
language
Android repos
Embedded system repos
1
robolectric/robolectric
Java
1
raspberrypi/linux
C
2
skylot/jadx
Java
2
Koenkk/zigbee2mqtt
TypeScript
3
JesusFreke/smali
Java
3
esphome/esphome
C++
4
zxing/zxing
Java
4
home-assistant/core
Python
5
google/bundletool
Java
5
node-red/node-red
JavaScript
Appendix
Table 16
Agent
Model
C/C++
C#
Java
JS/TS
Go
Rust
Linux
SWE-agent
GPT-5.5 (Medium)
34.8%
44.9%
50.0%
47.5%
34.7%
28.1%
40.0%
SWE-agent
Deepseek-v4-Pro
24.2%
44.9 %
39.2%
36.8%
29.6%
34.4%
34.8%
SWE-agent
Claude-4.5-Sonnet
43.8 %
20.5%
16.1%
20.4%
39.7%
28.9%
28.4%
SWE-agent
GPT-5.2 (Medium)
41.7%
21.8%
22.6%
16.1%
25.0%
28.9%
26.0%
SWE-agent
Gemini-3-flash
35.4%
14.3%
25.8%
9.9%
32.4%
37.5%
25.9%
SWE-agent
Deepseek-v3.1-terminus
27.1%
21.8%
27.4%
10.5%
20.6%
28.9%
22.7%
Appendix
Table 13: The success rate of different model-agent combinations on SWE-bench-Live/MultiLang. The Linux column is the average values of previous columns so that languages with different number of instances have the same weight.
LM
Claude-4.5
GPT-5.5
GPT-5.2
Gemini-3
Ds-4
Ds-3.1
Agent
Win-agent*
Win-agent
Win-agent
Win-agent
Win-agent
Win-agent
Resolved (%)
30.0%
26.7%
20.0%
16.7%
21.7%
20.0%
Appendix
Table 14: Benchmarking results of latest LMs on SWE-bench-Live/Windows. GPT models use medium reasoning effort. Claude-4.5: Claude-4.5-Sonnet, Gemini-3: Gemini-3-Flash, Ds-3.1: DeepSeek-v3.1-Terminus, Ds-4: Deepseek-v4-Pro. Win-agent* is the minimal agent implemented by our team with the same tool calls as SWE-agent and OpenHands. It is also the first coding agent that can run on Windows containers.
Figure 5: The proportion of different failure patterns of coding agents on SWE-bench-Live.
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.
Software engineering agents (SWE) are improving rapidly, with recent gains largely driven by reinforcement learning (RL). However, RL training is constrained by the scarcity of large-scale task collections with reproducible execution environments and reliable test suites. Although a growing number of benchmarks have emerged, datasets suitable for training remain limited in scale and diversity or often target a limited set of high-resource language ecosystems. We introduce SWE-rebench V2, a language-agnostic automated pipeline for harvesting executable real-world SWE tasks and constructing RL training environments at scale. The pipeline synthesizes repository-specific installation and test procedures via an interactive setup agent, and filters unsound instances using an ensemble of LLM judges, validated against human-verified SWE-bench annotations. Using this pipeline, we construct a dataset of 32,079 tasks spanning 20 languages and 3,617 repositories, with pre-built images for reproducible execution. To further scale training data, we additionally release 120,000+ tasks with installation instructions, fail-to-pass tests and rich metadata, where the problem statement is generated based on the original pull request description. We validate the collected instances through a diagnostic study that covers a subset of tasks in five programming languages across seven popular models, and provide instance-level metadata that flags common confounders such as overly restrictive tests and underspecified descriptions. We release the datasets, the collection and execution code, and associated artifacts to enable large-scale training of SWE agents across diverse languages and repositories.
Ibragim Badertdinov, Maksim Nekrashevich, Anton Shevtsov +1
Coding agents are increasingly asked to build software rather than patch it, yet benchmarks for from-scratch repository construction are mostly limited to a single language and depend on manually curated tasks. We introduce Zero2Repo, a benchmark in which an agent receives a product requirements document, an interface contract, and an empty workspace, and must deliver a complete repository in the project's native ecosystem. Tasks are produced by a language-agnostic authoring pipeline that converts real, version-pinned open-source projects into behavioral specifications, reproducible environments, and hidden acceptance tests. Each task is validated by execution: a reference implementation derived from the upstream project must pass, and adversarial validation must show that the tests reject incorrect implementations. Evaluation runs production coding agents in isolated containers, withholds the acceptance tests until an explicit submission, and assigns a binary reward only when every test passes, with no LLM judge. The pipeline and harness make no language-specific assumptions and apply to mainstream programming ecosystems; the current release contains Python, TypeScript, Go, and C++ tasks. Even on 11 tasks drawn from repositories that frontier models have very likely seen during training, the strongest agent solves only 10, and every failing submission passes 90-99% of the hidden tests; for the two strongest agents, 67-100% of failed tests trace to a single omission or a low-frequency rule stated in the specification rather than to a missing subsystem, so each failure is a concrete target for improvement.
Pei Yang, Tianyu Shi, Yuhang Yao +23
Gradient Data · McGill University · Carnegie Mellon University +6