TicTacBench: Benchmarking Timing Closure Capabilities of Coding Agents

Coding agents now sustain hours-long, tool-driven loops, yet their ability to carry long-horizon analog and mixed-signal circuits to electrical specification remains unmeasured. We introduce Analog Design Bench, a long-horizon agentic benchmark of 50 transistor-level design tasks contributed by 17 chip designers. Agents work with an open-source simulator, while an isolated verifier evaluates the submitted circuit using specification-based electrical tests. We evaluate 15 agent configurations across 2,250 two-hour attempts and observe full-specification pass rates from 8.0% to 78.0%. Coding-benchmark performance correlates with analog results but leaves much of the performance spread unexplained. Our failure analysis shows that most unsuccessful submissions have no recorded legality rejection but fail electrical acceptance, identifying electrical closure as the dominant endpoint challenge. We test time, reasoning effort, agent harness, and supplied design knowledge as interventions. Longer budgets and higher reasoning effort improve performance, while general skill documents provide little benefit and sometimes reduce performance. Supplying a task-matched reference topology, an idealized form of circuit-IP retrieval, raises DeepSeek V4 Pro by 18.7 percentage points and mainly accelerates GPT-5.6 Sol.

Post-route FPGA timing closure remains expert-dependent and computationally expensive. We present LATCH (LLM-Assisted Timing Closure Harness), a two-layer framework that separates large language model (LLM) orchestration from deterministic FPGA implementation and evaluation. Across sixteen designs and seven LLMs, a single-iteration study compares three agent control granularities - expert-written recipes, direct EDA operations and LLM-constructed procedures - to ask how much control an agent needs per attempt. Functional-pass rates are 98.2%, 71.4% and 17.9%, respectively; yet direct operations give slightly larger 3.4% median Fmax gains when passing, versus 3.2% for recipes. This exposes a trade-off between execution reliability and timing improvement. Informed by this trade-off, a multi-iteration study fixes the action tier at expert recipes to ask how repeated attempts are best organised, comparing a fitted deterministic heuristic with sequential LLM reasoning, branching exploration and knowledge base-guided exploration within 12 checkpoints per run. Branching raises mean maximum-frequency improvement from 10.5% (sequential) to 16.0%, and the knowledge base to 20.3%, improving 15 of 16 designs. Characterisation across 2,421 recipe attempts profiled their gain and validation rates, showing hard-block re-placement gives the largest cumulative mean gain at 41.4MHz.

Large language model (LLM) agents are extending electronic design automation (EDA) beyond static RTL generation toward long-horizon, tool-interactive workflows. Yet it remains unclear whether general-purpose coding agents, even with domain-specific EDA skills, can reliably execute an end-to-end RTL-to-GDS flow encompassing synthesis, physical implementation, and engineering change order (ECO) optimization. We evaluate AI agents on a PicoRV32 RTL-to-GDS flow using commercial EDA tools under two timing targets. Their performance is assessed using end-to-end design score, stage completion, and Token ROI, a cost-efficiency metric relating design quality to runtime and cost. Comparing three agent architectures and four foundation models, we derive three practical lessons. First, domain-specific skills improve agents' understanding of individual subtasks but do not ensure reliable completion of a long-horizon EDA flow. Second, agents that achieve similar design progress can still differ by up to 141 times in Token ROI, revealing substantial differences in runtime and cost efficiency. Third, low-level tool-interface mismatches are a major source of physical design failures, particularly when Tcl commands depend on the tool version or execution mode. These results suggest that robust Agentic EDA requires not only stronger models but also structured tool interfaces, persistent design context, controlled execution, and process-level evaluation.