# Runnable Commit Untangling for Coding Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11593 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11593/

## 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 7 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 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, 7 of 7)

- [Qwen3-Coder-Next Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00729/) (2026)
- [Robustness, Security, Privacy, Explainability, Efficiency, and Usability of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07506/) (2024)
- [SWE-CI: Evaluating Agent Capabilities in Maintaining Codebases via Continuous Integration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03823/) (2026)
- [Agentic Refactoring: An Empirical Study of AI Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04824/) (2025)
- [AtomicCommitBench: Can Coding Agents Reconstruct Commit Histories from Squashed Patches?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03332/) (2026)
- [Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13292/) (2026)
- ["Refactoring Runaway": Understanding and Mitigating Tangled Refactorings in Coding Agents for Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22526/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents produce large, tangled patches that mix multiple development purposes, making the code hard to review and maintain. Commit untangling offers the promise of organizing such large patches into untangled, manageable commits. This paper emphasizes two important limitations in existing commit untangling studies. First, they do not consider that untangled commits are ordered and should leave the code runnable. In practice, maintainers are unlikely to accept commits that prevent the code from running. Second, existing studies claim that commit untangling helps software maintenance. However, they conduct syntactic comparisons between the untangled commits and developers' original commits without directly showing the claimed maintenance benefits. To address these gaps, this paper makes two novel contributions: (1) RucTangle, the first agentic method that untangles commits while keeping the code runnable after each commit; and (2) TangleEval, the first evaluation framework that quantifies how untangled, manageable commit histories help coding agents repair bugs. We compare RucTangle against four untangling methods on 131 agent-generated patches. All histories produced by RucTangle are runnable, while baselines produce 20.6%-37.4% unrunnable commit histories. We further collect 453 agent-generated patches that introduce regressions (i.e., causing previously passing tests to fail) and ask two other coding agents to repair regressions. Augmenting agent context with RucTangle-produced histories yields 5.2% absolute improvement in pass@1. We also analyze agent trajectories to learn how they use untangled commits to navigate and fix bugs. Our findings demonstrate the value of adopting established software engineering practices in the era of coding agents, which broaden the future research agenda: how can agents actively use software history to make better development decisions?