Claim Plane: Enforceable Change Intents and Dynamic Scope for Parallel Coding Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Parallel coding agents can independently produce locally valid changes while still interfering at integration time, expanding beyond planned scope, or relying on premises invalidated by concurrent work. Existing responses emphasize communication, isolated workspaces, late merge-time repair, continuous supervision, or post-hoc runtime recovery. This paper presents Claim Plane, a model-agnostic coordination architecture that treats concurrent software change as a pre-write admission problem. Before implementation, each worker declares a versioned ChangeIntent containing an exact base commit, typed resources, dependencies, and operations marked as committed or contingent. A deterministic control plane atomically admits compatible intents, constrains same-file parallelism to declared regions, serializes unresolved overlap, tracks dependency invalidation, and fails closed on ambiguous authority. During execution, a contingent mutation does not reserve write ownership initially; the first attempted mutation triggers atomic scope promotion and re-admission against the current active set. Brokered execution binds capabilities to intent versions, leases, OS-level worktree locks, monotonic fencing tokens, and Git-tree provenance, while integration verifies immutable patches and evidence. A preliminary six-pair CooperBench mechanism check is reported only as feasibility evidence: static Claim Plane achieved 6/6 pair passes with full serialization, while dynamic scope retained parallel admission on half of the pairs, performed seven successful scope promotions, and failed closed on two undeclared mutations. The sample is intentionally too small for comparative claims. We argue that separating probabilistic planning from deterministic authority provides a foundation for a future learned semantic-dependency model and frontier-model escalation only on unresolved cases.
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 6 of its 6 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.
Builds on
6 of 6 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2026ATM: CID-Brokered Pre-Write Admission for Multi-Agent Code Co-Synthesis29 Jun
- 2026CoAgent: Concurrency Control for Multi-Agent Systems13 Jun
- 2026Shepherd: Enabling Programmable Meta-Agents via Reversible Agentic Execution Traces11 May
- 2025CodeCRDT: Observation-Driven Coordination for Multi-Agent LLM Code Generation18 Oct
Other references · 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026REVISE: Validity-Guided Recovery for Online Revisions in Agent Workflows
- 2026Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair
- 2026SWE Refactor Bench: Can Coding Agents Complete a Long-Horizon, Whole-Repository Stack Migration?
- 2026Verifying Coordination in Parallel Coding Agents: NP-Bench and a Scheduling Planner
- 2026Before the Pull Request: Mining Multi-Agent Coordination
- 2026Agentic Generation of AST Transformation Rules for Fixing Breaking Updates
- 2026Change2Task: From Repository Changes to Executable Coding Agent Tasks and Environments
- 2026Correct Is Not Governed: Provenance Integrity in Agentic Workflows