What Resolve Rate Hides: Trajectory Structure Diagnostics for Coding Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Coding agents are ranked almost entirely by resolve rate: whether their final patch passes the target tests. Yet two agents can reach the same outcome through very different processes, and a single pass/fail label says nothing about why a run failed or why an accepted run spent extra steps, time, or tokens. This process evidence lives in the trajectory, which records a run's searches, reads, edits, tool calls, validation, and reversions. However, raw traces are heterogeneous and hard to compare across runs. We present TraceProbe, a trajectory-diagnostic framework that recovers what resolve rate hides. TraceProbe normalizes each raw run into a canonical nine-type action taxonomy with deterministic effect labels, then applies two rule-based modules: Insight names single-trajectory anti-patterns adapted from established debugging practice (e.g., search loops, verification skips), while Converge aligns pairs of runs and classifies where their behavior diverges under controlled references. Applying TraceProbe to 2,500 trajectories from five production settings on SWE-Bench Verified, we find that (i) file choice is too coarse to separate success from failure, whereas function selection and completion behavior localize it; (ii) Insight anti-patterns act mainly as corpus-level difficulty clues, with search loops the most stable; and (iii) even resolved runs differ in how quickly they reach relevant code and how much failed work they incur. Trajectory structure thus adds auditable diagnostic context to outcomes by localizing inspection targets, suggesting failure hypotheses, and prioritizing runs for review.
Key facts. Cited by 5 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 42 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2026.
Builds on
42 of 58 references.
Closest ancestors · 25
Same direction, newest first
- 2026TrajAudit: Automated Failure Diagnosis for Agentic Coding Systems26 May
- 2026Agentic Harness Engineering: Observability-Driven Automatic Evolution of Coding-Agent Harnesses28 Apr
- 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure2 Apr
- 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories2 Feb
- 2025Process-Centric Analysis of Agentic Software Systems2 Dec
- 2025SWE-Compass: Towards Unified Evaluation of Agentic Coding Abilities for Large Language Models7 Nov
- 2025Detecting Silent Failures in Multi-Agentic AI Trajectories6 Nov
- 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories31 Oct
- 2025Process-Level Trajectory Evaluation for Environment Configuration in Software Engineering Agents29 Oct
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures29 Sep
- 2025An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving17 Sep
- 2025AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?3 Sep
13 more
- 2025When Agents go Astray: Course-Correcting SWE Agents with PRMs2 Sep
- 2025Illuminating LLM Coding Agents: Visual Analytics for Deeper Understanding and Enhancement18 Aug
- 2025Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectories23 Jun
- 2025UTBoost: Rigorous Evaluation of Coding Agents on SWE-Bench10 Jun
- 2025SWE-rebench: An Automated Pipeline for Task Collection and Decontaminated Evaluation of Software Engineering Agents26 May
- 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization13 May
- 2025Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems30 Apr
- 2025SWE-PolyBench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agents11 Apr
- 2025SeaView: Software Engineering Agent Visual Interface for Enhanced Workflow11 Apr
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?17 Mar
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul
- 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents1 Jul
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May
Other references · 17
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 319
- 2025SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?cited by 254
- 2025Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolvingcited by 165
- 2026Trace2Skill: Distill Trajectory-Local Lessons into Transferable Agent Skillscited by 161
- 2024AgentTrek: Agent Trajectory Synthesis via Guiding Replay with Web Tutorialscited by 123
- 2025SWE-bench Goes Live!cited by 74
- 2025AgentPRM: Process Reward Models for LLM Agents via Step-Wise Promise and Progresscited by 69
- 2025SPA-RL: Reinforcing LLM Agents via Stepwise Progress Attributioncited by 68
- 2025Are "Solved Issues" in SWE-bench Really Solved Correctly? An Empirical Studycited by 47
- 2025The SWE-Bench Illusion: When State-of-the-Art LLMs Remember Instead of Reasoncited by 47
- 2025TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Usecited by 46
5 more
- 2026Trajectory-Informed Memory Generation for Self-Improving Agent Systemscited by 16
- 2026On Randomness in Agentic Evalscited by 12
- 2026CodeTracer: Towards Traceable Agent Statescited by 11
- 2026TRACE: Trajectory Reasoning through Adaptive Cross-Step Evidence Aggregation for LLM Agentscited by 3
- 2026Socio-Technical Anti-Patterns in Building ML-Enabled Software: Insights from Leaders on the Forefrontcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?cited by 0
- 2026AgentPProf: Semantic Profiler for Long Horizon AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebasecited by 0
- 2026Can Terminal Agents Trust Their Own Verification? Diagnosing and Improving Self-Verificationcited by 0
- 2026Learning When and How to Intervene: A Hindsight-Distilled Sentinel for Coding Agentscited by 0
- 2026Learning When and How to Intervene: A Hindsight-Distilled Sentinel for Coding Agents30 Sep 2026
- 2026Can Terminal Agents Trust Their Own Verification? Diagnosing and Improving Self-Verification30 Sep 2026
- 2026Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase24 Sep 2026
- 2026AgentPProf: Semantic Profiler for Long Horizon AI Agents14 Sep 2026
- 2026Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?30 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Coherence Collapse: Diagnosing Why Code Agents Fail After Reaching the Right Code
- 2026TRAJDEBUG: Tracing Error Lifecycle to Identify Critical Failures in Long-Horizon Agent Trajectories
- 2026What Process Evaluation of Coding Agents Actually Measures: Action, Task, and Step Are Three Different Levels
- 2026Before They Can Solve: Predicting Post-Training Coding-Agent Performance from Base Models
- 2026AgentLens: Production-Assessed Trajectory Reviews for Coding Agent Evaluation
- 2026DynSTEER: Dynamic Stage-wise Trajectory Evaluation and Execution-time Review for Agents
- 2026From Noisy Traces to Root Causes: Structural Trajectory Analysis and Causal Extraction for Agent Optimization
- 2026A Systematic Evaluation of Trajectory Data Curation for LoRA Fine-Tuning of Code Agents