mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

RigorBench: Benchmarking Engineering Process Discipline in Autonomous AI Coding Agents

arXiv 2606.22678 ↗First posted 21 Jun 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic coding harnesses - such as Agent-Skills, Superpowers, and Agent-Rigor - are increasingly deployed to augment underlying LLMs for real-world software engineering tasks. Existing benchmarks evaluate these agents almost exclusively on outcome correctness: whether generated code passes tests or resolves issues. We argue that this outcome-only lens is insufficient: an agent that arrives at a correct solution through reckless trial-and-error, without planning, verification, or graceful recovery, is fundamentally less reliable than one that follows sound engineering discipline. We introduce RigorBench, the first benchmark designed to measure process discipline in AI coding agents. RigorBench evaluates these harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity. A composite RigorScore aggregates these dimensions into a single metric via a weighted sum. We curate a suite of 30 tasks spanning five categories - Plan-Then-Build, Verify-Or-Die, Doom Loop Gauntlet, Know When to Fold, and Don't Break the Build-and evaluate leading harnesses in a controlled with/without experimental design against baseline coding assistants. Our results show that structured process discipline not only improves process quality scores by an average of 41% but also raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%, providing the first quantitative evidence that how agents code matters as much as what they produce. We release the full benchmark, scoring rubrics, and trajectory analysis tools as open-source artifacts.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 19 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jun 2026.

Builds on

19 of 46 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025ProjectEval: A Benchmark for Programming Agents Automated Evaluation on Project-Level Code Generation10 Mar
  2. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May

Other references · 17

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  4. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  5. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  6. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
  7. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  8. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
  9. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  10. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
  11. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  12. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
5 more
  1. 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 527
  2. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
  3. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
  4. 2023Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?cited by 191
  5. 2023Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 139

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks
  2. 2026ProjDevBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents on End-to-End Project Development
  3. 2026Position: Coding Benchmarks Are Misaligned with Agentic Software Engineering
  4. 2026ClayBuddy: A Framework, Evaluation, & Mitigation of Coding Agent Failures
  5. 2026Engineering Reliable Coding Agents: Evaluating and Operating the System Around the Model
  6. 2026Agentic Agile-V: From Vibe Coding to Verified Engineering in Software and Hardware Development
  7. 2026PERFOPT-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents on Software Performance Optimization
  8. 2026EvoCode-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents in Multi-Turn Iterative Interactions