Copy-on-Write Scoring: Application-Specific Agent Evaluations
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Trustworthy deployment of LLM-based agents in software systems requires evaluating how they perform on application-specific workflows, with enough granularity to localize where they succeed and fail. Yet existing agent evaluation mechanisms are limited: benchmarks have low construct validity for application-specific workflows and environments, and replica evaluation environments are expensive and prone to drift. We propose Copy-on-Write (CoW) Scoring, a framework that evaluates agent operations directly within application environments using a PostgreSQL-level Copy-on-Write mechanism to isolate agent writes. CoW Scoring produces session- and operation-level scores that highlight where agents' database write operations succeed and fail in a given application environment, enabling inexpensive evaluation and iteration on agent harnesses and tool surfaces. We demonstrate the framework on Plane, an open-source project-management platform, where analysis surfaced specific issues in the tool surface, and corresponding fixes produced measurable improvements on affected models. Python library: https://github.com/trail-ml/agent-cow-python
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2026.
Builds on
10 of 23 references.
References · 10
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,091
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,953
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,335
- 2023Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Modelscited by 560
- 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 344
- 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 313
- 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Surveycited by 150
- 2023Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Modelscited by 137
- 2025Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 112
- 2023Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gapcited by 56
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Rethinking the Value of Agent-Generated Tests for LLM-Based Software Engineering Agents
- 2026PROTEA: Offline Evaluation and Iterative Refinement for Multi-Agent LLM Workflows
- 2026Do More Agents Help? Controlled and Protocol-Aligned Evaluation of LLM Agent Workflows
- 2024Evaluating Software Development Agents: Patch Patterns, Code Quality, and Issue Complexity in Real-World GitHub Scenarios
- 2026Agent Audit: A Security Analysis System for LLM Agent Applications
- 2026Automated Table Reproduction via Code Generation
- 2026ADK Arena: Evaluating Agent Development Kits via LLM-as-a-Developer
- 2026CURATE: Leveraging LLM Agents to Compose, Catalog, and Deploy Reproducible Workflows