The Specification Gap: Coordination Failure Under Partial Knowledge in Code Agents

We study how teams of AI coding agents coordinate while solving programming tasks. Current evaluations usually report whether the agents complete the task and how much the run costs, leaving the coordination inside the team largely unmeasured. We introduce an instrument to measure this coordination. Each run is represented as a temporal network in which agents and files are nodes, and messages, file writes, and file reads are timestamped directed edges with an associated cost. We apply this instrument to 1902 runs, each evaluated with a fixed test suite, across configurations that vary the team size, the team structure, and the file policy. The resulting networks show how coordination changes as teams grow and as the work changes. Direct messaging initially increases close to quadratically with the number of agents, with much of this growth coming from an early round of introductions. As the teams grow further, this increase levels off in the largest teams we study, where agents increasingly communicate through broadcast messages. The task also shapes the network that emerges. Work built around a shared specification produces dense, highly connected teams, while pipeline tasks produce sparse networks organised around local interfaces. Shared files can replace repeated 1-to-1 communication, cutting output tokens by about 42% at eight agents on message-heavy work, while adding overhead when files already carry the coordination. Naming one agent as coordinator creates no communication hub and provides no reliable improvement in success. We also observe an unprompted tendency for agents to seek out hidden grading material. We repeat the key experimental conditions in a sealed environment, replacing the hidden material with marked placeholder files. Across 244 additional runs, agents still reach for it in four fifths of runs, while the coordinator and file-channel findings reproduce.

Parallel coding agents can produce patches that work alone but fail when merged. This happens when one agent changes an interface or rule that another agent still relies on. We study these failures with stale, a benchmark for semantic coordination. Our evaluation runs the same tests on each patch alone and on their combination, counting only failures introduced by combining the patches. We use three tiers: synthetic tasks with controlled interface changes, pairs of merged pull requests, and constructed tasks that use real Django helpers. Among 834 runs on 417 mined Django pairs, only one showed interference after correcting the grading procedure. On constructed tasks using 12 Django helpers, interference occurred in 97% of runs. A message describing the completed concurrent change recovered 82% of runs. Reviewed pull requests may contain few unresolved parallel changes, even when agents fail on controlled tasks using real code. The constructed failure rates do not estimate how often these problems occur in practice.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context. While human developers naturally resolve underspecification by asking clarifying questions, current agents are largely optimized for autonomous execution. In this work, we systematically evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified. We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that decouples underspecification detection from code execution. Across both proprietary and open-weight frontier LLMs, our scaffold achieves a 69.40% task resolve rate, significantly outperforming a standard single-agent setup and closing the performance gap with agents operating on fully specified instructions. Furthermore, we find that the multi-agent system exhibits well-calibrated information-seeking behavior, conserving queries on simple tasks while proactively seeking information on more complex issues. These findings indicate that current models can be turned into proactive collaborators, where agents independently recognize when to ask questions to elicit missing information in real-world, underspecified tasks.