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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01527 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01527/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 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 18 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 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, 18 of 18)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [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)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09938/) (2021)
- [Training Software Engineering Agents and Verifiers with SWE-Gym](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21139/) (2024)
- [Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.15000/) (2022)
- [CrossCodeEval: A Diverse and Multilingual Benchmark for Cross-File Code Completion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11248/) (2023)
- [Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02605/) (2025)
- [RLEF: Grounding Code LLMs in Execution Feedback with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02089/) (2024)
- [Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.14179/) (2022)
- [Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.00385/) (2023)
- [Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.14306/) (2022)
- [SWE-PolyBench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08703/) (2025)
- [SWE-Sharp-Bench: A Reproducible Benchmark for C# Software Engineering Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02352/) (2025)
- [From Human-to-Human to Human-to-Bot Conversations in Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12712/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Engineering Reliable Coding Agents: Evaluating and Operating the System Around the Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13867/) (2026)
- [Terminal Agents: A Survey of AI Agents in Command-Line Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20485/) (2026)
- [RealSWE: A Compositional Evaluation of Coding Agents under Realistic User Requests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27831/) (2026)
- [TraceDance: An Automated System for Building Agent Behavior Benchmarks from Real-World Agent Deployment Traces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33295/) (2026)
- [Cortex: Measurement-Gated Evolution and Pruning of Coding-Agent Skills and Rules](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.14216/) (2026)

## 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.