# RealSWE: A Compositional Evaluation of Coding Agents under Realistic User Requests

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27831 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27831/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (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 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 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)

- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [SWE-bench Multimodal: Do AI Systems Generalize to Visual Software Domains?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03859/) (2024)
- [Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02605/) (2025)
- [SWE-PolyBench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08703/) (2025)
- [SWE-bench Goes Live!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23419/) (2025)
- [FEA-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Repository-Level Code Generation for Feature Implementation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.06680/) (2025)
- [DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07946/) (2026)
- [SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.20779/) (2026)
- [HumanEvalComm: Benchmarking the Communication Competence of Code Generation for LLMs and LLM Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00215/) (2024)
- [NLPerturbator: Studying the Robustness of Code LLMs to Natural Language Variations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19783/) (2024)
- [Ask or Assume? Uncertainty-Aware Clarification-Seeking in Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.26233/) (2026)
- [Persona-Augmented Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs Across Diverse Writing Styles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.22168/) (2025)
- [Saving SWE-Bench: A Benchmark Mutation Approach for Realistic Agent Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.08996/) (2025)
- [SWE-INTERACT: Reimagining SWE Benchmarks as User-Driven Long-Horizon Coding Sessions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30573/) (2026)
- [SWE-MERA: A Dynamic Benchmark for Agenticly Evaluating Large Language Models on Software Engineering Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11059/) (2025)
- [Dialogue SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Dialogue-Driven Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.13995/) (2026)
- [REAP: Automatic Curation of Coding Agent Benchmarks from Interactive Production Usage](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01527/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents are now commonly evaluated on the SWE-bench family of benchmarks, whose tasks are built from curated GitHub issues: long, structured, and information-rich. Real user requests, however, are typically far shorter and less structured. To characterize this gap, we define a six-category information taxonomy and four dimensions of linguistic style, and apply them to real user prompts from SWE-chat and problem statements from SWE-bench Verified and Pro. We find that requests carrying only a problem statement, alone or with limited additional context, account for 88% of real prompts but just 7% of benchmark problems. Furthermore, 87% of real prompts are casually written whereas 94% of benchmark problems are formal. Guided by these observations, we introduce RealSWE, 381 multi-variant task families derived from SWE-bench Verified and Pro. Variants within each family share the same underlying task and gold patch while differing only in information composition and linguistic style. Evaluating seven contemporary LLMs with RealSWE, we find that i) realistic inputs reduce resolution rates by 6.4 pp on average and can change model rankings. Controlled analysis further shows that ii) including Desired Behavior and Motivation significantly affects performance, whereas Environment Information and Reproduction Steps merely add tokens without measurable benefit; iii) linguistic style has only small, model-dependent effects. These findings provide actionable guidance for users and agents: explicitly stating the desired behavior and motivation, which most real prompts omit, substantially improves the LLM's software engineering performance.