Abstract
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.
Explore similar work
Jun 16, 2026cs.SE
Coding agents have become a major mode of software engineering, but the benchmarks we use to compare them were designed in a pre-agent era: they collapse model, harness, and environment into a single end-to-end score, typically computed against one reference solution, with no component-level signal for iteration. We argue that current coding benchmarks are misaligned with agentic software engineering. A coding agent in practice is not a model: it is a system harness -- a composite of models, harnesses, contexts, environments, and feedback signals, any one of which can move the benchmark score by margins comparable to those between adjacent model generations. We discuss three symptoms: (i) benchmark scores conflate the model with the rest of the harness; (ii) grading against a single reference solution penalises equally valid alternatives; and (iii) the absence of signal at the level of individual harness components makes the end-to-end system score difficult to iterate on.
Maria I. Gorinova, Macey Baker, Amy Heineike +3
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
May 8, 2026cs.LG
We introduce SWE Atlas, a benchmark suite for coding agents spanning three professional software engineering workflows: Codebase Q&A (124 tasks), Test Writing (90 tasks), and Refactoring (70 tasks). SWE Atlas differs from prior SWE benchmarks in three key ways: it targets underrepresented but practically important task categories, uses comprehensive category-specific evaluation protocols, and adopts under-specified, agentic task formulations that better reflect real-world usage. Its evaluation framework combines programmatic checks with rubric-based assessment. This goes beyond functional correctness, evaluating software engineering quality, including test and refactor completeness, maintainability, reusable abstractions, and codebase hygiene. We evaluate a range of frontier and open-weight models on SWE Atlas and find that GPT-5.4 and Opus 4.7 achieve the strongest overall performance, while even the best open-weight models score poorly. Our analysis suggests that top models rely on extensive codebase exploration and runtime-driven reasoning. However, even top models consistently struggle with subtle edge cases, complex runtime analysis, and adherence to software engineering best practices. Overall, SWE Atlas provides a complementary evaluation suite for measuring both correctness and engineering quality in coding agents.
Mohit Raghavendra, Soham Dan, Miguel Romero Calvo +12