# Towards a Benchmark for Dependency Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00205 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.00205/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Setup Complete, Now You Are Compromised: Weaponizing Setup Instructions Against AI Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.15143/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI coding agents increasingly modify real software repositories and make dependency decisions, including adding, removing, or updating third-party packages. These choices can materially affect security posture and maintenance burden, yet repository-level evaluations largely emphasize test passing and executability without explicitly scoring whether systems (i) reuse existing dependencies, (ii) avoid unnecessary additions, or (iii) select versions that satisfy security and policy constraints. We propose DepDec-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating dependency decision-making beyond functional correctness. To ground DepDec-Bench in real-world behavior, we conduct a preliminary study of 117,062 dependency changes from agent- and human-authored pull requests across seven ecosystems. We show that coding agents frequently make dependency decisions with security consequences that remain invisible to test-focused evaluation: agents select PR-time known-vulnerable versions (2.46%) and exhibit net-negative security impact overall (net impact -98 vs. +1,316 for humans). These observations inform DepDec-Bench task families and metrics that evaluate safe version selection, reuse discipline, and restraint against dependency bloat alongside test passing.