Specification-first convergence with an AI coding agent: a case study of dismantling a core architectural invariant across 189 files in a 717k-line codebase with no test oracle and no human code review

Spec-Driven Development (SDD) is a fast-emerging practice in which a structured natural-language specification, written by a developer, or (more often) drafted by an AI tool and then curated by the developer, drives an AI coding agent's implementation. A wave of tooling (GitHub Spec Kit [3], OpenSpec [4], AWS Kiro [5], and dozens of others) has appeared since 2025, yet the artifacts these tools produce have never been studied at scale. We present SpecMine, a corpus that captures SDD in public GitHub repositories through two censuses: a broad census of spec.md/specs.md files covering most tools (470,795 files across 73,030 repositories, attributed to 17 named tools), and a Kiro census of its distinct requirements/design/tasks layout (98,574 files across 12,910 repositories). Each spec is enriched with full repository metadata, complete commit history, and parsed document structure. How a spec becomes code is itself an open question, so for 11 tools we sweep every pull request that touches a spec in their repositories with at least ten stars, capturing 5,992 such PRs across 581 repositories with their changesets. That makes the simplest workflow, spec and implementation changing together in one PR, directly observable, and a census-wide index of 2,421,323 typed references (1.28M to code files, 863k to sibling documents, 152k to PRs, 62k refs, 43k branches, 22k issues) gives a second, independent link from spec to code. SpecMine lets the community study, for the first time, how software is specified in the age of AI agents.

As AI coding agents take on increasingly complex, long-horizon software engineering tasks, existing benchmarks are rapidly saturating and their evaluation quality has come under serious scrutiny: a recent audit found that nearly 60% of unsolved SWE-bench Verified instances contain flawed tests -- either overly narrow tests that reject correct solutions or overly broad tests that check unstated requirements -- and that frontier models can verbatim reproduce gold patches from training data. Code refactoring, which requires coordinated, behavior-preserving changes across many files, offers a substantially harder and more realistic test of agent capability, yet remains underserved by current benchmarks. We introduce SWE-Bench ProMax, an expert-curated, multilingual code refactoring benchmark of 170 instances drawn from real commits across seven programming languages (Python, Java, TypeScript, Go, C, C++, and Rust). Every instance undergoes rigorous, multi-stage curation that directly addresses the quality problems identified in prior benchmarks: issue descriptions are rewritten from scratch to provide precise, unambiguous specifications, and test suites are manually reviewed to remove overly narrow and overly broad tests. Tasks with insufficient complexity or limited cross-file scope are filtered out, yielding a benchmark of challenging, large-scale refactoring tasks that average 11.4 modified files and 261.6 lines of code per instance, substantially exceeding the scale of existing benchmarks. Experiments with frontier models under two agent scaffolds show that the best model achieves only 41.2% resolve rate, confirming that SWE-Bench ProMax presents a meaningful and unsaturated challenge for current AI coding agents. Our benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/swe-bench-promax/SWE-Bench-ProMax.

AI coding agents are increasingly used to write real-world software, but ensuring that their outputs are correct remains a fundamental challenge. Formal verification offers a promising path: an agent generates code together with a machine-checked proof, guaranteeing that the code satisfies a formal specification. However, there is no guarantee that the formal spec itself matches the user's intent. In this work, we study specification autoformalization: whether LLM agents can translate informal programming problems into faithful formal specifications. We introduce Verus-SpecBench, a benchmark of 581 spec-writing tasks derived from Codeforces problems targeting Verus, a verifier for Rust, and Verus-SpecGym, an agentic environment in which models interact with Verus, bash, & the filesystem to develop these specs. The central challenge is evaluation: expert-written reference specs are expensive to write, & LLM judges can miss subtle mistakes. We address this by (a) extending Verus's exec_spec mechanism so that generated specs can be executed as Rust code, & (b) testing them against official Codeforces tests & adversarial cases extracted from Codeforces "hacks", which are edge cases written by competitors to break incorrect solutions. On Verus-SpecBench, the strongest model, Gemini 3.1 Pro, solves 77.8% of tasks, other frontier models solve 51.1--57.8% & OSS models reach only 21.5--25.5%. Our analysis of failure modes shows that model-generated specs can omit important input assumptions, accept incorrect outputs, & reject valid ones. We also find that LLM-as-a-judge evaluation misses 26% of the failures our evaluator catches. Overall, our results suggest that spec autoformalization is within reach for frontier agents but remains brittle even on problems where they can already generate correct code. The code, data, & logs can be found at https://github.com/formal-verif-is-cool/verus-spec-gym