mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

REAP: Automatic Curation of Coding Agent Benchmarks from Interactive Production Usage

arXiv 2604.01527 ↗First posted 2 Apr 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.LGcited by 4

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 18 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2026.

Builds on

18 of 24 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025SWE-Sharp-Bench: A Reproducible Benchmark for C# Software Engineering Tasks4 Nov
  2. 2025SWE-PolyBench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agents11 Apr
  3. 2024Training Software Engineering Agents and Verifiers with SWE-Gym30 Dec

Other references · 15

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  5. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  6. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
  7. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
  8. 2022Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Modelscited by 216
  9. 2023CrossCodeEval: A Diverse and Multilingual Benchmark for Cross-File Code Completioncited by 181
  10. 2025Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolvingcited by 165
  11. 2024RLEF: Grounding Code LLMs in Execution Feedback with Reinforcement Learningcited by 146
  12. 2022Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 133
3 more
  1. 2023Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPTcited by 125
  2. 2022Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programmingcited by 91
  3. 2024From Human-to-Human to Human-to-Bot Conversations in Software Engineeringcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026AgentLens: Production-Assessed Trajectory Reviews for Coding Agent Evaluation
  2. 2026ProjDevBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents on End-to-End Project Development
  3. 2026PERFOPT-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents on Software Performance Optimization
  4. 2026RepoMod-Bench: A Benchmark for Code Repository Modernization via Implementation-Agnostic Testing
  5. 2026Breaking, Stale, or Missing? Benchmarking Coding Agents on Project-Level Test Evolution
  6. 2026Coding-Agent Benchmarks Should Match Their Users' Task Flows
  7. 2026Zero2Repo: Can Coding Agents Build Repositories from Scratch?
  8. 2026Tencent WorkBuddy Bench: A Multi-Domain Coding-Agent Benchmark with Contamination-Resistant Task Construction