Abstract
Frontier coding agents read configuration files (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, Cursor Rules) at session start and are expected to follow the conventions inside them. Practitioners assume that structural choices (file size, instruction position, file architecture, contradictions in adjacent files) measurably affect adherence. We report a systematic factorial study of these choices using four manipulated variables, measuring compliance with a trivial target annotation across 1,650 Claude Code CLI sessions (16,050 function-level observations) on two TypeScript codebases, three frontier models (primarily Sonnet 4.6, with Opus 4.6 as a CLI-matched cross-model check and Opus 4.7 reported descriptively under a CLI-version confound), and five coding tasks. We use mixed-effects models with a Bayesian companion. None of the four structural variables or three two-way interactions produces a detectable contrast after multiple-testing correction. Size and conflict nulls are supported by affirmative-null Bayes factors (BF10 between 0.05 and 0.10); position and architecture nulls are failures to reject without Bayes-factor support. The largest effect we measured is within-session: each additional function the agent generates is associated with approximately 5.6% lower odds of compliance per step (OR = 0.944) within the session-length range we tested, though the relationship is non-monotonic rather than a constant per-step effect. This reproduces on a second TypeScript codebase and on Opus 4.6 at matched configuration; it was identified during analysis rather than pre-specified. Within the conditions tested, file-structure variables did not produce detectable contrasts; compliance varies systematically between coding tasks and across each session's sequence of generated functions.
Explore similar work
May 19, 2026cs.SE
As autonomous coding agents see rapid adoption, their evaluation has primarily focused on task completion rates holding the target codebase fixed. This leaves a critical question unanswered: does the structural and stylistic quality, or ``cleanliness'' of the underlying code affect an agent's ability to navigate and modify it? To isolate the effect of code cleanliness from agent capability, we introduce an evaluation protocol built around minimal pairs: repositories that match on architecture, dependencies, and external behaviour, but differ on static-analysis rule violations and cognitive complexity. The pairs are constructed in both directions, by agent pipelines that either degrade a clean repository or clean a messy one. We author 33 tasks across six such pairs, evaluated through hidden tests at the application's public surface. Across 660 trials with Claude Code, code cleanliness does not change the agent's pass rate. However, it substantially alters the agent's operational footprint: agents working on cleaner code use 7 to 8% fewer tokens and reduce file revisitations by 34%. Our findings suggest that traditional maintainability principles remain highly relevant in the era of AI-driven development, shaping the computational cost and navigational efficiency of coding agents. Code cleanliness joins model choice, harness, and prompting as a factor that materially affects agent behaviours.
Priyansh Trivedi, Olivier Schmitt
Apr 27, 2026cs.SE
AI coding agents powered by large language models can read codebases and produce functional code, but they routinely violate team-specific product decisions that are invisible in the source code alone. We introduce a controlled benchmark measuring decision compliance, the rate at which an AI coding agent follows established product, design, and engineering decisions, across 8 realistic software engineering tasks containing 41 weighted decision points. We compare a baseline configuration (Claude Code with codebase access only) against an augmented configuration that adds Brief, a product-context retrieval system providing spec generation, mid-build consultation, and retrieval of recorded decisions, persona pain points, customer signals, and competitive intelligence. On identical prompts and the same repository, the augmented configuration achieves 95% decision compliance versus 46% for the baseline, a 49 percentage point improvement. Per-decision analysis reveals that the baseline achieves 100% compliance on decisions visible in the codebase and 0-33% on decisions requiring product context, suggesting that product-context retrieval is a key driver of the improvement. We release the benchmark repository, all 16 pull requests, and scoring harness for independent reproduction.
Drew Dillon, Kasyap Varanasi
Feb 12, 2026cs.SE
A widespread practice in software development is to tailor coding agents to repositories using context files, such as AGENTS.md. Although this practice is strongly encouraged by agent developers, there is currently no rigorous investigation into whether such context files are actually effective for real-world tasks. In this work, we study this question and evaluate coding agents' task completion performance in two complementary settings: established SWE-bench tasks from popular repositories, with LLM-generated context files, and a novel collection of issues from repositories containing developer-committed context files. Surprisingly, we find that providing context files does not generally improve task success rates, while increasing inference cost by over 20% on average. This observation holds across different LLMs, coding agents, and for both LLM-generated and developer-committed context files. Specifically, we find that while instructions in the context files are well followed by coding agents, repository overviews, although popular and recommended by model providers, are not helpful. We conclude that while context files are useful for specifying non-standard coding practices, any attempts to improve performance should be rigorously evaluated before deployment.
Thibaud Gloaguen, Niels Mündler, Mark Müller +2