Coding Agent Benchmarks

Existing code-generation benchmarks score a single mapping from a complete prompt to a one-shot output. However, real web development is different. Users seldom write a full spec at the start; many requirements only become clear once they look at an intermediate result and react to it. We present Asuka-Bench, a benchmark that pairs underspecified user intent with multi-round refinement, grounded in browser-rendered behavior. Each task is resolved through a closed loop: a Code Agent generates a web project, a UI Agent executes test cases on the deployed site, and a User LLM turns evaluation outcomes into natural-language feedback for the next round. The benchmark comprises 50 web tasks with 784 evaluation criteria and 2402 expected outcomes. We benchmark 8 LLMs across 2 agent frameworks. The results separate models clearly: weighted Task Pass Rate varies by 38 percentage points and models also differ substantially in their ability to repair from feedback. Asuka-Bench is also far from saturated: even the strongest model completes only 52% of projects after three rounds.

Repository-level coding benchmarks face a trade-off between task difficulty and evaluation reliability: tasks that challenge frontier models often involve large codebases with incomplete test coverage, while human review does not scale. We introduce TensorBench, a benchmark of 199 feature-addition and refactoring tasks on an open-source compiler-based tensor framework that extends PyTorch with first-class support for dense and sparse tensors. Tasks cover new sparse formats, dense optimization passes, IR transformations, scheduler changes, runtime components, and high-level numerical operators. TensorBench grades each run by applying the agent's patch and running the framework's test suite, which includes the pre-existing randomized regression tests and any tests the agent adds. For feature-addition tasks, a pass means that the patched repository preserves the tested pre-existing behavior and satisfies the agent-added checks for the requested feature. We evaluate seven coding agents spanning three frontier model families and one open-weight model. Pass rates under this criterion range from $64.8\%$ for the strongest agent to $22.1\%$ for the weakest. Agents pass different subsets of tasks: pairwise Cohen's $κ$ ranges from $-0.07$ to $0.43$, with $κ= 0.05$ for the two strongest agents.

Agent benchmarks should reflect what users actually ask deployed agents to do, yet existing benchmarks often miss key realism properties of real developer-agent sessions. We introduce RealClawBench, a live benchmark framework built from real OpenClaw sessions to capture the distribution, diversity, and real-world difficulty of deployed agent use. Real user requests are challenging to benchmark because they often depend on local execution environments, involve implicit or underspecified intent, and require nontrivial verification. RealClawBench addresses these challenges with two core mechanisms: reconstructed execution environments and deterministic verifiable scorers, which together convert real sessions into reproducible, automatically scored tasks. The resulting release contains 281 executable tasks sampled from a much larger real-session pool while preserving the source distribution, with maximum final-vs-source Jensen-Shannon divergence of 0.0448. Evaluating 14 contemporary models shows that the best system solves only 65.8% of tasks, revealing substantial headroom on realistic developer-agent workloads. By turning real deployed sessions into controlled evaluation instances, RealClawBench provides a practical path toward benchmarks that better measure agent capability in actual use. Code is available at:https://anonymous.4open.science/r/real-claw-bench-582B.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) has become the dominant architecture for frontier language models. To meet this demand, production frameworks have built optimized MoE training stacks over years of engineering effort. Yet evolving these stacks for new architectures and system optimizations remains expensive. With the rise of AI coding agents, they could automate parts of training-framework development and accelerate this evolution. But applying them to these existing frameworks carries hidden costs, invisible to today's throughput-only evaluations. We name this missing dimension agent-task efficiency (ATE): the cost of using coding agents to understand, operate, and extend a framework. Grounded in four agent-native design principles, we build PithTrain, a compact, agent-native MoE training framework. We further introduce ATE-Bench, covering real-world training-framework tasks. Our evaluation shows PithTrain matches the throughput of production frameworks, and on ATE-Bench, PithTrain enables higher agent-task efficiency, with up to 62% fewer Agent Turns and 64% less Active GPU Time.

Autonomous AI coding agents are becoming a core tool for ML practitioners in industry and research alike. Despite this growing adoption, no standardized benchmark exists to evaluate their ability to design, implement, and train models from scratch across diverse domains. We introduce 1GC-7RC (Single Graphic Card: Seven Research Challenges), a benchmark comprising seven ML tasks spanning language modeling, image classification, semantic segmentation, graph learning, tabular prediction, time-series forecasting, and text classification. Each task provides a locked data-preparation and evaluation script together with a baseline training script; the agent may only modify the training code, has no access to pretrained weights (with one controlled exception for semantic segmentation), no internet access, and must complete each task within a task-specific wall-clock budget (40-120 minutes) on a single GPU. We evaluate seven coding agents: five proprietary (Claude Code with Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7; Codex CLI with GPT 5.5; and OpenCode with Qwen 3.6+) and two open-source (OpenCode with Kimi K2.5, Kimi K2.6). Across 5 runs per agent-task pair, we report substantial performance differences that reveal varying levels of implicit ML knowledge, planning ability, and time-budget management. The benchmark, harness, and all evaluation artifacts are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/Strolchii/1GC-7RC-Benchmark to facilitate reproducible comparison of future agents. Because our benchmark design is modular, the benchmark can be extended to new tasks and domains, adapted to different GPU budgets, and used to study multi-agent settings, making it a flexible platform for future research on autonomous research agents.

Turning ideas into full software projects from scratch has become a popular use case for language models. Agents are being deployed to seed, maintain, and grow codebases over extended periods with minimal human oversight. Such settings require models to make high-level software architecture decisions. However, existing benchmarks measure focused, limited tasks such as fixing a single bug or developing a single, specified feature. We therefore introduce ProgramBench to measure the ability of software engineering agents to develop software holisitically. In ProgramBench, given only a program and its documentation, agents must architect and implement a codebase that matches the reference executable's behavior. End-to-end behavioral tests are generated via agent-driven fuzzing, enabling evaluation without prescribing implementation structure. Our 200 tasks range from compact CLI tools to widely used software such as FFmpeg, SQLite, and the PHP interpreter. We evaluate 9 LMs and find that none fully resolve any task, with the best model passing 95% of tests on only 3% of tasks. Models favor monolithic, single-file implementations that diverge sharply from human-written code.

AI coding agents powered by large language models can read codebases and produce functional code, but they routinely violate team-specific product decisions that are invisible in the source code alone. We introduce a controlled benchmark measuring decision compliance, the rate at which an AI coding agent follows established product, design, and engineering decisions, across 8 realistic software engineering tasks containing 41 weighted decision points. We compare a baseline configuration (Claude Code with codebase access only) against an augmented configuration that adds Brief, a product-context retrieval system providing spec generation, mid-build consultation, and retrieval of recorded decisions, persona pain points, customer signals, and competitive intelligence. On identical prompts and the same repository, the augmented configuration achieves 95% decision compliance versus 46% for the baseline, a 49 percentage point improvement. Per-decision analysis reveals that the baseline achieves 100% compliance on decisions visible in the codebase and 0-33% on decisions requiring product context, suggesting that product-context retrieval is a key driver of the improvement. We release the benchmark repository, all 16 pull requests, and scoring harness for independent reproduction.

Production deployment of AI coding agents requires fast, reproducible evaluation signals. Existing industrial practices trade off speed and fidelity: online A/B testing takes weeks and risks user experience, shadow deployment yields signals that are not reproducible across runs, and public benchmarks diverge from production workloads in language distribution, prompt style, and codebase structure. This paper presents REAP (Relevance and Execution-Audited Pipeline), an automated curation pipeline that constructs production-derived benchmarks from real developer-agent sessions without manual labeling. Such curation, while in-distribution to production usage, runs into several challenges. Untestable prompts, misaligned tests, and test flakiness all compromise evaluation reliability. While tasks can be manually audited to ensure only high-quality tasks remain in the benchmark, this approach is infeasible in the monorepo setting: the build infrastructure state is often ephemeral in large monorepos and requires the benchmark to be continuously re-curated against the current codebase. As manual verification cannot be sustained at this cadence, REAP adds an automated verification layer using LLM-based task classification, agentic test-relevance validation, and multi-run stability checks to ensure the executable benchmark yields trustworthy signals. We use REAP to curate Harvest, a benchmark where each task feeds the coding agent a real developer prompt and verifies the resulting code change against fail-to-pass tests retrieved from production. Harvest's distribution spans more than four programming languages with a majority of tasks drawn from Hack. Model and harness evaluations reveal that solve rates range from 42.9% to 58.2% across five frontier models, surfacing capability differences that inform concrete deployment decisions.

Software development is iterative, yet agentic coding benchmarks hide design issues through their single-shot setup. Recent iterative benchmarks attempt to remedy this but heavily constrain an agent's design decision space, making it impossible to faithfully measure how their decisions shape future extensions. We introduce SlopCodeBench, a benchmark of 36 problems and 196 checkpoints where agents repeatedly extend their own solutions. Unlike prior iterative benchmarks, our evolving specifications demand architectural decisions but leave internal structure to the agent. We measure two forms of degradation: structural erosion (concentrated complexity) and verbosity (redundant code). Evaluating 15 coding agents across open and closed models, we find that no agent fully solves any problem end-to-end, and the best agent passes 14.8% of checkpoints. Quality degrades across checkpoints, with structural erosion rising in 77% of trajectories and verbosity in 75.5%. Compared to 473 open-source Python repositories, agent code is 2.3x more verbose and 2.0x more eroded, and the human repositories degrade less often and by smaller margins across their git histories. Explicit quality guidance reduces initial verbosity and erosion by up to a third, without affecting degradation rates. SlopCodeBench provides the first measurement of code degradation under iterative extension, revealing that agents pass checkpoints while producing code that erodes and bloats with each turn.

Large language model (LLM) coding agents increasingly operate at the repository level, motivating benchmarks that evaluate their ability to optimize entire codebases under realistic constraints. Existing code benchmarks largely rely on synthetic tasks, binary correctness signals, or single-objective evaluation, limiting their ability to assess holistic optimization behavior. We introduce FormulaCode, a benchmark for evaluating agentic optimization on large, real-world codebases with fine-grained, multi-objective performance metrics. FormulaCode comprises 957 performance bottlenecks mined from scientific Python repositories on GitHub, each paired with expert-authored patches and, on average, 264.6 community-maintained performance workloads per task, enabling the holistic ability of LLM agents to optimize codebases under realistic correctness and performance constraints. Our evaluations reveal that repository-scale, multi-objective optimization remains a major challenge for frontier LLM agents. Project website at: https://formula-code.github.io

We introduce ISO-Bench, a benchmark for coding agents to test their capabilities on real-world inference optimization tasks. These tasks were taken from vLLM and SGLang, two of the most popular LLM serving frameworks. Each task provides an agent with a codebase and bottleneck description, whereby the agent must produce an optimization patch evaluated against expert human solutions. We curated 54 tasks from merged pull requests with measurable performance improvements. While existing benchmarks heavily use runtime-based metrics, such approaches can be gamed to pass tests without capturing the actual intent of the code changes. Therefore, we combine both hard (execution-based) and soft (LLM-based) metrics to show that both are necessary for complete evaluation. While evaluating both closed and open-source coding agents, we find no single agent dominates across codebases. Surprisingly, agents often identify correct bottlenecks but fail to execute working solutions. We also show that agents with identical underlying models differ substantially, suggesting scaffolding is as important as the model.