# RigorBench: Benchmarking Engineering Process Discipline in Autonomous AI Coding Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22678 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.22678/

## 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 19 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Jun 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, 19 of 19)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [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)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (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)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09896/) (2023)
- [Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10160/) (2023)
- [ProjectEval: A Benchmark for Programming Agents Automated Evaluation on Project-Level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07010/) (2025)

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

- [Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28871/) (2026)
- [ParanoiaEval: Benchmarking Unnecessary Defensive Work in Agentic Coding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08662/) (2026)

## 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.