# SWE-Chain: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Chained Release-Level Package Upgrades

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14415 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.14415/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 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 26 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 May 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, 26 of 26)

- [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)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11868/) (2026)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03091/) (2023)
- [CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03065/) (2024)
- [SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16941/) (2025)
- [SWE-bench Multimodal: Do AI Systems Generalize to Visual Software Domains?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03859/) (2024)
- [SWE-Fixer: Training Open-Source LLMs for Effective and Efficient GitHub Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.05040/) (2025)
- [NL2Repo-Bench: Towards Long-Horizon Repository Generation Evaluation of Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.12730/) (2025)
- [SWE-EVO: Benchmarking Coding Agents in Long-Horizon Software Evolution Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18470/) (2025)
- [Interaction2Code: Benchmarking MLLM-based Interactive Webpage Code Generation from Interactive Prototyping](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03292/) (2024)
- [DesignBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for MLLM-based Front-end Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06251/) (2025)
- [EvoCodeBench: An Evolving Code Generation Benchmark with Domain-Specific Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22821/) (2024)
- [SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.24755/) (2026)
- [AgencyBench: Benchmarking the Frontiers of Autonomous Agents in 1M-Token Real-World Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11044/) (2026)
- [MRWeb: An Exploration of Generating Multi-Page Resource-Aware Web Code from UI Designs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15310/) (2024)
- [SWE-CI: Evaluating Agent Capabilities in Maintaining Codebases via Continuous Integration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03823/) (2026)
- [CodeFlowBench: A Multi-turn, Iterative Benchmark for Complex Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21751/) (2025)
- [MaintainCoder: Maintainable Code Generation Under Dynamic Requirements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24260/) (2025)
- [CodeCrash: Exposing LLM Fragility to Misleading Natural Language in Code Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14119/) (2025)
- [Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04601/) (2026)
- [SWE-Milestone: Evaluating AI Agents on Continuous Software Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.13428/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [SpecPath: Testing Coding Agents Across Contract-Equivalent Specification Histories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.09799/) (2026)
- [Benchmarking the Residual: What Long-Horizon Evaluations Add Beyond Matched Short-Task Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27283/) (2026)
- [Repo2Skill-Evo: Repository Skills Go Stale in Silence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21964/) (2026)
- [Update from Hell: Can Coding Agents Survive Hidden Breakage in Dependency Upgrades?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30300/) (2026)
- [Do Coding Agents Reuse Existing Code or Reinvent the Wheel?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35357/) (2026)
- [SWE-Journey: Towards More Realistic Evaluation of Coding Assistants through Long-Horizon, Multi-Turn Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11559/) (2026)
- [StateHarness: Maintaining Evolving Project State for Long-Horizon Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17616/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents powered by large language models are increasingly expected to perform realistic software maintenance tasks beyond isolated issue resolution. Existing benchmarks have shifted toward realistic software evolution, but they rarely capture continuous maintenance at the granularity of package releases, where changes are bundled, shipped, and inherited by subsequent versions. We present SWE-Chain, a benchmark for evaluating agents on chained release-level package upgrades, where each transition builds on the agent's prior codebase. To produce upgrade specifications, we design a divide-and-conquer synthesis pipeline that aligns release notes with code diffs for each version transition, ensuring the requirements are grounded in actual code changes, informative to agents, and feasible to implement. SWE-Chain contains 12 upgrade chains across 9 real Python packages, with 155 version transitions and 1,660 grounded upgrade requirements. Across nine frontier agent-model configurations, agents achieve an average of 44.8% resolving, 65.4% precision, and 50.2% F1 under the Build+Fix regime, with Claude-Opus-4.7 (Claude Code) leading at 60.8% resolving, 80.6% precision, and 68.5% F1. These results show that SWE-Chain is both feasible and discriminative, and reveal that current agents still struggle to make correct upgrades across chained package releases without breaking existing functionality.