SWE-Clar: Can Coding Agents Clarify Incomplete Client Requirements and Deliver Greenfield Software?

As LLMs become increasingly capable of implementing software, a critical bottleneck emerges: whether they truly understand what users want. Users often begin with vague intent, leaving important requirements to be clarified through interaction. In repository-level development, misunderstandings can propagate and cause costly rework. However, existing benchmarks typically evaluate implementation from complete specifications or underspecified requests, overlooking pre-coding requirement clarification. Prior clarification studies mainly focus on function-level tasks. It therefore remains unclear how well LLMs can transform vague intent into clear requirements through interaction and how this capability affects subsequent code generation. We introduce ReqClarifyBench, an interactive requirement clarification benchmark for repository-level software development. It contains 341 tasks spanning game, miniapp, and web development, each with a vague user intent, a human-validated requirement document, and code evaluation artifacts. We employ LLM-based user simulators with diverse personas derived from real-world conversations. We evaluate six LLMs in terms of clarification effectiveness and generated requirement document quality. Results show that stronger clarification effectiveness does not necessarily translate into higher document quality, and performance varies substantially across user personas. We also find that coding-agent harnesses do not further improve requirement document quality compared with their base LLMs. These findings offer insights for building LLM-based end-to-end software development systems.

Large language model-powered coding agents are increasingly used to modify existing code repositories, for example, by adding features or fixing bugs. Yet existing repository-level benchmarks typically evaluate only whether the final patch passes tests. Satisfying a user request requires a long chain of interdependent reasoning and decisions: an agent must recover explicit and implicit requirements, formulate a repository-grounded implementation plan, and translate it into correct code. A pass/fail outcome cannot characterize how an unsuccessful trajectory diverges from the requirements and implementation process needed for a correct patch. To address this gap, we introduce SWE-RPG, a repository-level benchmark that combines executable patch evaluation with validated ground-truth references (GTs) for (1) Requirement Clarification and (2) Implementation Planning. These intermediate GTs support retrospective, GT-aligned diagnosis of complete coding-agent trajectories across clarification, planning, code generation, and artifact submission. SWE-RPG comprises 163 tasks from 31 Python and Java repositories, including 113 bug fixes and 50 feature additions. We evaluate 3 coding agents, including Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode, with 6 large language model backends, including Claude-Sonnet-5 and GPT-5.6-Terra. Results show that the evaluated popular coding agents still struggle to implement user requests in existing repositories, achieving an average resolved rate of only 31.5% on SWE-RPG. Intermediate-GT diagnosis further identifies implicit requirement recovery as the main bottleneck, accounting for 24.5%--46.0% of agent runs. This result suggests implicit-requirement recovery as a key candidate direction for improving coding agents. The benchmark data and evaluation code are available at https://github.com/Xin-Zhou-smu/SWE-RPG-Bench.

As the production of software passes into the hands of software itself, coding agents are increasingly commissioned to build agents fitted to their users' own workflows. This delegation carries a quiet assumption, that the delivered agent will faithfully serve the requirement it was built for, rather than merely appear to. No existing benchmark tests that assumption. We introduce AgentSWE, a benchmark for agent software engineering spanning three stages of the agent development lifecycle: Creation of a complete agent from a natural-language requirement, Editing of production agent codebases, and Optimization toward a measurable target. Each of its 25 tasks is framed as a commission rather than an exam: the builder iterates against a handful of illustrative cases, while acceptance exercises the frozen submission on held-out cases designed to span the full requirement, grading behavior against requirement-derived rubrics under hard pass/fail gates or, for Optimization, against the source benchmark's own objective. Evaluating a range of coding agents across models and harnesses, we find that none comes close to delivering what a requirement asks for: the gap between what a builder demonstrates and what it delivers is the norm, not the corner case. An accompanying empirical analysis of the failure trajectories identifies recurring failure modes, among them overfitting to the visible cases, hollow runtimes behind code that looks complete, and unsupported claims of completion, each a signal by which coding agents can learn to build the agents they are asked for.