Autonomous software generation (ASG) aims to turn human requirements into executable applications, but delivering these applications does not necessarily establish that their interacting components satisfy the specified behavioral requirements. We introduce GameASG-Bench, a benchmark that makes behavioral testability part of the generation task for game development. Our design declares an evaluation interface specification before generation, fixing legal starting scenarios, player-level actions, stable snapshots, rejection behavior, and invariants while leaving private implementations open. Concretely, we include: (i) static L1 checks that assess source-level compliance; and (ii) browser-executed L2 checks that combine semantic observations with real input and runtime evidence. We implement this protocol as 47 browser-native game-generation tasks spanning 12 primary genres and both 2D and 3D interaction, each with executable checks and an independently verified reference implementation. Our experiments answer four key questions about end-to-end agent performance, tool access and nominal turn budget, reasoning effort, and harness choice. Across nine agent stacks, the highest observed mean L2 check pass rate is 93.2%, yet the highest observed strict task success rate, requiring all L1 and applicable L2 prerequisite and core requirement checks, is only 55.3% (26/47 tasks). For DeepSeek-V4-Flash, full tool access and larger nominal turn budgets yield more strict task successes, while the strict task success rate is not monotonic in reasoning effort. Both tested harnesses achieve 18 strict task successes, but only ten tasks succeed under both. These results expose task-level compliance gaps that high average check pass rates actually obscure.
Figures & tables
Document
File
Content
Generation prompt
target.md
Workspace, delivery protocol, and concise gameplay brief.
Gameplay design requirement
game-spec.md
Player-visible mechanics and the minimum playable loop.
Evaluation interface specification
tdd.md
Scenario setup, action and observation semantics, rejection behavior, and invariants.
Table 1: Task documents and their roles. All three are available to the coding agent; only the generation prompt is passed directly to the harness.
Figure 1: Composition of the 47 tasks. Each panel covers all 47 tasks; legend entries give counts and percentages. RTS and TBS denote real-time and turn-based strategy, respectively. Reference technology identifies the rendering technology used by each reference implementation.
L1: source-level checks
L2: behavioral checks
Tool checks
43
Prerequisite checks (P0)
102
Regular-expression checks
288
Core requirement checks (P1)
534
Anti-pattern checks
5
Extended capability checks (P2)
249
Total
336
Total
885
Table 2: Check counts for the 47 tasks used in all reported experiments. Layer and priority describe different properties of a check.
Model
Harness
Strict task success
L1
L2
Mean
P0
P1
P2
GPT-6-Astra
Codex CLI
26/47 (55.3)
98.0
93.2
99.0
92.7
92.4
Claude-Opus-5
Claude Code
24/47 (51.1)
99.6
90.4
91.2
89.9
91.1
GPT-5.6-Sol
Codex CLI
21/47 (44.7)
98.9
91.3
100.0
89.7
91.9
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Claude Code
18/47 (38.3)
99.4
89.3
98.0
86.7
90.2
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
Claude Code
15/47 (31.9)
99.6
85.2
85.3
83.9
88.9
Table 3: End-to-end results at maximum reasoning effort. Strict task success is reported as the number of successful tasks out of 47 and the corresponding rate (%); all other entries are check pass rates (%). L1 and overall L2 entries are mean per-task check pass rates; L2 P0–P2 entries pool applicable checks within each priority. Bold denotes the highest observed value in each column.
Model
Harness
Artifact size (KB)
Input tokens (k)
Output tokens (k)
Monetary cost (USD)
GPT-6-Astra
Codex CLI
78.82
896.1
55.5
4.4445
Claude-Opus-5
Claude Code
68.52
12,632.6
142.4
11.8500
GPT-5.6-Sol
Codex CLI
64.67
1,382.5
45.7
1.7867
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Claude Code
85.21
13,038.4
203.6
0.2461
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
Claude Code
90.34
12,944.3
202.9
0.7431
Kimi-K3
Claude Code
57.51
1,263.9
72.3
2.5518
Table 4: Mean artifact size and reported resource use. Artifact sizes cover all 47 tasks per stack. Input tokens combine the reported input, cache-read, and cache-write categories.
Tool setting
Strict task success
L1
L2 P0
L2 P1
L2 P2
No tools (serialized API)
7/47 (14.9)
98.5
83.3
65.3
80.1
File read/write only
6/47 (12.8)
98.8
87.3
66.2
73.4
Files + syntax checking
9/47 (19.1)
98.2
86.3
63.4
69.3
Full tool access
18/47 (38.3)
99.4
98.0
86.7
90.2
Table 5: Tool configurations for DeepSeek-V4-Flash. All 47 tasks complete evaluation in each condition. Strict task success is reported as the number of successful tasks out of 47 and the corresponding rate (%); check pass rates are percentages. Syntax checking permits Bash for node --check , but no browser. The configuration with full tool access uses the nominal 120-turn baseline.
Nominal turn budget
Evaluated / planned
Strict task success
L1
L2 P0
L2 P1
L2 P2
All planned
Conditional
30
10/47
7/47 (14.9)
7/10 (70.0)
100.0
100.0
94.0
97.6
60
32/47
13/47 (27.7)
13/32 (40.6)
99.7
88.6
81.6
88.5
120
47/47
18/47 (38.3)
18/47 (38.3)
99.4
98.0
86.7
90.2
Table 6: Nominal turn-budget comparison for DeepSeek-V4-Flash with full tool access. The primary strict task success rate uses all 47 planned tasks as the denominator; conditional strict task success rates and check pass rates describe only the evaluated subset. Counts are followed by percentages in parentheses; check pass rates are percentages.
Effort
Strict task success
L1
L2 P0
L2 P1
L2 P2
Reasoning tokens
Low
7/47 (14.9)
98.3
93.1
71.7
80.2
37,699
High
19/47 (40.4)
99.4
97.1
82.7
88.9
138,232
Max
18/47 (38.3)
99.4
98.0
86.7
90.2
189,210
Table 7: Reasoning-effort comparison for DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Strict task success is reported as the number of successful tasks out of 47 and the corresponding rate (%); check pass rates are percentages. Reasoning-token counts are averaged across tasks. Bold denotes the highest observed number of strict task successes or check pass rate.
Harness
Strict task success
L1
L2 P0
L2 P1
L2 P2
Claude Code
18/47 (38.3)
99.4
98.0
86.7
90.2
Codex CLI
18/47 (38.3)
99.2
96.1
87.1
92.2
Table 8: Harness comparison for DeepSeek-V4-Flash at maximum reasoning effort. Strict task success is reported as the number of successful tasks out of 47 and the corresponding rate (%); check pass rates are percentages. Bold denotes the highest observed value in each column.
Artifact / stack
Observed evidence
Role of the checks
Diner Dasher GPT-6-Astra
L1 and L2 P0/P2 pass; L2 P1 mouse and touch drag checks fail because real drags produce no service progress.
Real-input checks expose a core interaction failure despite other passing checks.
Turbo Smash Beast DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Reset or scenario loading stops natural-time simulation; acceleration, coasting, and related real-input checks fail.
Checks combining scenario preparation and real input expose a failure in their interaction.
Table 9: Diagnostic evidence linking evaluation checks to observed failures. The GPT-6-Astra case uses Codex CLI; the DeepSeek-V4-Flash case uses Claude Code with maximum reasoning effort and full tool access.
Coding agents can modify and test code across large software projects. Game development is a domain where agents must implement gameplay rules. A game can end in a valid state even after violating its rules during the run. Current game-development benchmarks replay fixed examples, score videos, or ask another model to judge the result. However, no existing benchmark checks game rules throughout execution across varied evaluator-selected scenarios while ensuring exactly reproducible verdicts. We introduce GameLogicBench, a benchmark of 72 gameplay-logic tasks in Godot projects. An automated evaluator checks each game's rules at every simulation tick. Across 403 hand-designed scenarios, seeded parameter variations produce 1,451 test cases. To ensure that the evaluator measures behavior rather than implementation choice, it must accept different correct implementations for each task while rejecting mutants, implementations with one required capability removed. The tasks span isolated mechanics, multi-system interactions, and repository-scale features. Across 20 combinations of language models and scaffolds, the best observed run solves 52.78% of tasks. Under Claude Code, all twelve models solve fewer tasks as task scope expands from isolated mechanics, through interacting systems, to repository-scale features. Agents inspect code more often and make more tool calls on repository-scale tasks than on isolated-mechanic tasks. Most unsuccessful submissions are runnable, but implement some required game behavior incorrectly. We compared versions of our benchmark evaluator built with and without validation using mutants. Without this validation, incorrect agent submissions passed. A separate analysis finds agents copying code from public repositories when network access is open. Reliable evaluation thus depends both on what the tests reject and on what external code agents can access.
Game generation is an emerging application of coding agents, requiring models to transform natural-language specifications into playable interactive systems. Unlike traditional coding tasks, game generation takes place within a game engine, where scripts, scenes, assets, rendering, and runtime interactions must jointly produce coherent gameplay. We formalize end-to-end game generation as the problem of producing a complete game artifact that realizes a specification through observable player-game interaction in a target environment. We argue that evaluating this setting requires three desiderata: Engine Grounding, Artifact Completeness, and Interactive Verification. We propose an interaction-grounded evaluation framework that assesses executable gameplay through replayed demonstrations and rubric-guided multimodal judging. We instantiate this framework as GameCraft-Bench, a benchmark comprising 140 Godot tasks across 15 game families. Evaluations of frontier coding agents show that end-to-end game generation remains highly challenging: the strongest agent achieves only 41.46%, and most agents score below 40%. Further analysis reveals that while agents often implement recognizable mechanics, they struggle to deliver complete games with sufficient content, functional visual feedback, and coherent presentation. See https://tongxuluo.github.io/gamecraft-bench-website for demos, code, and data.
Tongxu Luo, Rongsheng Wang, Jiaxi Bi +22
1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · 2Shenzhen Loop Area Institute · 4USTB +5
Delegating complete application development to coding agents requires preserving the intended design rather than simply producing plausible outputs through naive prompting. Game development provides a demanding testbed, as long-form Game Design Documents (GDDs) describe requirements that must work together across game logic, visual rendering, and player interactions. However, existing game-development benchmarks typically use compact specifications and provide limited support for evaluating interdependent requirements across these aspects in long-form GDDs. We introduce A2Z GameSpec-Bench, a benchmark of 100 long-form GDDs for evaluating end-to-end game development by agents. We measure faithfulness by checking whether the game satisfies the GDD requirements and preserves the relationships among them. Each GDD is turned into a dependency-aware contract that contains rules, constraints, and prerequisite relations. Following game-development practices, we combine source-code inspection with agent-generated test policies for scenario-based replay and adaptive playtesting. The contract remains fixed across agents and revision rounds, while judgments and evidence linked to the same requirements support consistent comparison and failure detection. Our evaluations show that current agents struggle to jointly satisfy interdependent requirements across code implementation and actual play. Requirement-specific feedback improves GDD Fidelity by 10.9% relative to self-revision after two rounds. A2Z GameSpec-Bench assesses end-to-end specification-following ability beyond implementation judgments and provides targeted feedback to support more faithful game development. Code and datasets are available at https://a2z-gamespec-bench.github.io.
Seonho Lee, Wonryeol Jeong, Alberto Cereser +4
KRAFTON · KAIST · Korea National University of Arts