# The Specification Gap: Coordination Failure Under Partial Knowledge in Code Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24284 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.24284/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 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.
- Builds on 11 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [StarCoder: may the source be with you!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06161/) (2023)
- [CodeAgent: Enhancing Code Generation with Tool-Integrated Agent Systems for Real-World Repo-level Coding Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07339/) (2024)
- [ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01861/) (2023)
- [CODESIM: Multi-Agent Code Generation and Problem Solving through Simulation-Driven Planning and Debugging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05664/) (2025)
- [EvoGit: Decentralized Code Evolution via Git-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02049/) (2025)
- [AdaCoder: An Adaptive Planning and Multi-Agent Framework for Function-Level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.04220/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [ATM: CID-Brokered Pre-Write Admission for Multi-Agent Code Co-Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00041/) (2026)
- [AECP: Artifact-Exclusive Communication Protocol for Multi-Agent Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06481/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When multiple LLM-based code agents independently implement parts of the same class, they must agree on shared internal representations, even when the specification leaves those choices implicit. We study this coordination problem across 51 class-generation tasks, progressively stripping specification detail from full docstrings (L0) to bare signatures (L3), and introducing opposing structural biases (lists vs. dictionaries) to stress-test integration. Three findings emerge. First, a persistent specification gap: two-agent integration accuracy drops from 58% to 25% as detail is removed, while a single-agent baseline degrades more gracefully (89% to 56%), leaving a 25--39 pp coordination gap that is consistent across two Claude models (Sonnet, Haiku) and three independent runs. Second, an AST-based conflict detector achieves 97% precision at the weakest specification level without additional LLM calls, yet a factorial recovery experiment shows that restoring the full specification alone recovers the single-agent ceiling (89%), while providing conflict reports adds no measurable benefit. Third, decomposing the gap into coordination cost (+16 pp) and information asymmetry (+11 pp) suggests that the two effects are independent and approximately additive. The gap is not merely a consequence of hidden information, but reflects the difficulty of producing compatible code without shared decisions. These results support a specification-first view of multi-agent code generation: richer specifications are both the primary coordination mechanism and the sufficient recovery instrument.