mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Correct Code, Broken Contributions? SWE-CC: Benchmarking Repository Policy Compliance for Coding Agents

arXiv 2610.06193 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous coding agents now resolve a substantial share of real-world GitHub issues. However, passing functional tests differs fundamentally from producing a high-quality contribution acceptable for merging. Mature open-source projects publish repository-specific contribution policies, spanning style, git, testing workflows, to ensure code quality and long-term maintainability. Because existing benchmarks evaluate patches solely on unit tests, agent compliance with repository governance remains unknown. In this paper, we introduce SWE-CC, a benchmark evaluating code and process compliance in autonomous software engineering. We develop a semi-automated pipeline that converts developer documentation across 12 open-source repositories into 823 machine-checkable atomic policies. SWE-CC introduces two features: 1) lightweight, deterministic checker functions that represent each policy, 2) a comprehensive auditing mechanism that inspects both agent runtime behaviors and final deliverables. We evaluate the compliance of agent workflows in 500 end-to-end software contribution tasks extended from SWE-bench Verified. Our evaluation of four LLMs under two agent scaffolds shows that modern agents suffer from coding compliance issues: although agents produce functionally correct patches, they still violate 43.1 percent of applicable project policies, with nearly half of all violations occurring during intermediate execution steps. These results show that functional correctness does not guarantee real-world readiness, highlighting that future software engineering agents must reliably conform to repository governance to enable safe and trustworthy deployment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026E2E-SWE: Benchmarking LLMs on Building Working Codebases from Scratch
  2. 2026SWE-Explore: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Explore Repositories
  3. 2026SWE-Gate: Passing Functional Tests Is Not Enough for Software Engineering Agents
  4. 2026A Unified Issue Resolution Benchmark for Requirement Clarification, Planning, and Code Generation for Coding Agents
  5. 2026Not All Agents Are Equal: Code Quality and Post-Merge Maintenance Across Five Autonomous Coding Agents in the Wild
  6. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
  7. 2025NL2Repo-Bench: Towards Long-Horizon Repository Generation Evaluation of Coding Agents
  8. 2026BeyondSWE: Can Current Code Agent Survive Beyond Single-Repo Bug Fixing?