Post-Training on Office Work Improves Software Engineering: A Behavioral Account of Cross-Domain Transfer

For reinforcement learning (RL) in self-contained environments, a policy can get rewards by exploiting environment-specific regularities (tool schemas, grader parsing, task templates) rather than by acquiring transferable skill, and an in-distribution holdout shares those regularities. We argue that the discriminating question is behavioral, namely how a trained agent acts, and that cross-benchmark transfer is the right place to look for it. We post-train an open-weight mixture-of-experts model (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) on 363 long-horizon Model Context Protocol (MCP) tasks across 27 categories, using a two-stage SFT-then-RL pipeline. Toolathlon performance informed the initial base-family and SFT-teacher choices, but no external-benchmark task or grader entered training and no external score informed the reward, training hyperparameters, trained-checkpoint selection, or stopping. At greedy pass@1, the trained model improves over the base on five reported external evaluations: Toolathlon (+9.6 pp), $τ^2$-Bench (+5.3 pp), BFCL-V4 (+3.5 pp), SWE-Bench Pro (+5.8 pp), and Terminal-Bench 2 (+2.8 pp). Both software-engineering benchmarks improve despite the training collection containing no software-engineering tasks. An exploratory paired-trajectory analysis identifies four recurring behavioral differences (more careful local-goal formation, building goal-relevant working state, keeping parent goals stable through local repairs, and verifying completion) that appear in analogous forms across office workflows and code. These results provide descriptive evidence that long-horizon multi-tool post-training can change ways of working that transfer beyond its training domain.

AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments. Yet current agent benchmarks largely evaluate short-form tasks, such as single pull requests, small tickets, or 5-10 minute exercises, limiting our ability to measure agents' capabilities in planning, long-context understanding, and memory use. We introduce SWE-Marathon, a benchmark of 20 long-horizon tasks spanning software engineering and adjacent technical domains. Each task consists of a unique executable environment, a human-written reference solution, and a multi-layer verification suite. Logged agent attempts average 27.2M total tokens, making SWE-Marathon substantially longer-horizon than existing SWE and command-line agent benchmarks. Current frontier coding agents solve fewer than 30% of tasks. Failures often arise from poor self-verification, self-reported infeasibility, and premature termination. We also observe reward-hacking behavior in 13.8% of rollouts, where agents attempt to exploit the environment or verifier to bypass the intended workflow. SWE-Marathon includes adversarial review of test suites and execution environments, as well as multi-layer checks designed to prevent shortcut solutions. We release SWE-Marathon, evaluation code, and agent trajectories at https://swe-marathon.org/.

DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents. Most public agentic coding benchmarks follow SWE-bench in mining merged fixes from public GitHub repositories, which creates two problems: the fixes and their discussion were likely seen during pretraining, so a high score can reflect recall rather than problem-solving; and each task is graded by the tests that shipped with its merged fix, which were written to confirm one specific fix rather than grade an arbitrary solution, so they can fail a correct alternative or pass an incomplete one. DeepSWE avoids both. Its tasks are written from scratch across 91 active open-source repositories and five languages and are never contributed back upstream, so their reference solutions stay out of the public record that model training scrapes; and each task is graded by a hand-written verifier that checks the requested functionality and accepts any implementation that provides it. When an independent LLM judge re-reviews graded runs, it disagrees with DeepSWE's verifier about an order of magnitude less often than with SWE-Bench Pro's inherited tests (1.4% versus 32.4%). Despite being about half the length of SWE-Bench Pro's prompts, DeepSWE's prompts describe tasks whose reference solutions touch 5.5x more code, and the benchmark separates frontier agents across a wider score band than the leaderboards on which they otherwise cluster. We release the benchmark, its verifiers, and the full record of evaluation trajectories.