Position: Coding Benchmarks Are Misaligned with Agentic Software Engineering

SWE-Bench Pro has emerged as a standard benchmark for evaluating software engineering agents on challenging repository-level tasks. However, our analysis work show that its evaluation is undermined by two sources of unreliability: reward hacking, enabled by leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, and task quality issues, including misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. These issues can inflate benchmark performance and obscure agents' true coding ability. We present SWE-Bench Pro Verified, a verified version of SWE-Bench Pro that addresses both problems. Our approach combines anti-hacking safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels without disrupting normal agent functionality, with task refinement that minimally corrects inconsistencies within flawed instances. Evaluations on SWE-Bench Pro Verified reveal that some models perform substantially worse than previously evaluated, suggesting that existing results on SWE-Bench Pro may overestimate real software engineering capability. SWE-Bench Pro Verified offers a more trustworthy benchmark for assessing software engineering agents.

Agentic software engineering benchmarks are typically summarized by nominal category labels such as "bug fix" or "feature implementation," yet benchmarks carrying the same label are built through very different curation pipelines. A label thus reveals little about the engineering work a benchmark demands. We introduce the Spread--Novelty--Centrality (SNC) profile, a three-axis characterization of the demands of repository-level coding tasks, grounded in empirical software engineering research. We apply the profile to five widely used benchmarks and 14,922 trajectories of two model families at three scales, and report three findings. (1) A label is an unreliable proxy for task demands, as every pair of benchmarks is statistically separated on at least two SNC axes, and the separations trace back to specific curation decisions. (2) Agent behaviour reveals demands that the human-written gold solution cannot. Agents produce larger solutions than the gold where problem statements withhold hints and smaller ones where curation inflates the gold. How a task is phrased shapes what an agent produces. (3) Task demands correlate with success uniformly, with resolved runs concentrating in the low-SNC region for every family and scale, whereas the behavioural signatures of success are family-specific. Claude succeeds by matching the scope of the gold solution, and its parity share on files rises from $0.17$ at the smallest scale to $0.54$ at the largest. Qwen succeeds by exceeding the gold scope at every scale, and editing too little marks failure for both families.

Agentic coding harnesses - such as Agent-Skills, Superpowers, and Agent-Rigor - are increasingly deployed to augment underlying LLMs for real-world software engineering tasks. Existing benchmarks evaluate these agents almost exclusively on outcome correctness: whether generated code passes tests or resolves issues. We argue that this outcome-only lens is insufficient: an agent that arrives at a correct solution through reckless trial-and-error, without planning, verification, or graceful recovery, is fundamentally less reliable than one that follows sound engineering discipline. We introduce RigorBench, the first benchmark designed to measure process discipline in AI coding agents. RigorBench evaluates these harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity. A composite RigorScore aggregates these dimensions into a single metric via a weighted sum. We curate a suite of 30 tasks spanning five categories - Plan-Then-Build, Verify-Or-Die, Doom Loop Gauntlet, Know When to Fold, and Don't Break the Build-and evaluate leading harnesses in a controlled with/without experimental design against baseline coding assistants. Our results show that structured process discipline not only improves process quality scores by an average of 41% but also raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%, providing the first quantitative evidence that how agents code matters as much as what they produce. We release the full benchmark, scoring rubrics, and trajectory analysis tools as open-source artifacts.