mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ANCHOR: Assessing Naturalistic Constraint Hierarchies and Ordering in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding

arXiv 2610.16859 ↗First posted 12 Oct 2026cs.CLcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

For repository-grounded coding agents, a functionally correct patch is not necessarily an acceptable one: developers also constrain how the task must be carried out-modification scope, workflow order, validation, tool use, and reporting. This capability, which we call engineering constraint following, remains largely invisible to current evaluations. We introduce ANCHOR (Assessing Naturalistic Constraint Hierarchies and Ordering in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding), a benchmark built on naturalistic, multilingual repository tasks spanning eight language groups. ANCHOR combines (i) a hierarchical taxonomy of 10 categories and 78 leaf types distilled from real developer interactions, (ii) an automated pipeline that instantiates task-grounded atomic constraints and composes them into typed AND/THEN/PRIORITY relations, and (iii) a trajectory-grounded evaluation framework that checks both the code diff and the execution trajectory with rule-based and LLM judges. Across 19 agent configurations spanning 2 scaffolds and 10 foundation models on 358 tasks, the strongest measured system, Claude Opus 4.8 under Cline, reaches 70.1% atomic compliance and 63.7% relation compliance, while 19.0% of tasks pass every scored checklist item under the strict all-item FCCR criterion. A five-engineer audit of constraints from 50 instances reports 94% feasibility, 94% repository consistency, and 96% realism. In the primary paired set (14 configurations), the mean signed change in task completion after adding constraints is +0.7 percentage points; individual changes vary in both directions. These results distinguish functional success from constraint compliance, with failures concentrated in workflow ordering, tool-use discipline, and reporting, and substantial interactions between models and scaffolds.

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 15 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.

Builds on

15 of 66 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026SWE-rebench V2: Language-Agnostic SWE Task Collection at Scale27 Feb
  2. 2026GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering17 Feb
  3. 2025SWE-EVO: Benchmarking Coding Agents in Long-Horizon Software Evolution Scenarios20 Dec

Other references · 12

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  2. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
  3. 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 546
  4. 2025Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolvingcited by 171
  5. 2024Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Compositioncited by 152
  6. 2024CFBench: A Comprehensive Constraints-Following Benchmark for LLMscited by 67
  7. 2025IHEval: Evaluating Language Models on Following the Instruction Hierarchycited by 53
  8. 2025AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarioscited by 49
  9. 2024Prompting Large Language Models to Tackle the Full Software Development Lifecycle: A Case Studycited by 44
  10. 2024LIFBench: Evaluating the Instruction Following Performance and Stability of Large Language Models in Long-Context Scenarioscited by 33
  11. 2025CodeIF: Benchmarking the Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 19
  12. 2025CIFE: Code Instruction-Following Evaluationcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Agent READMEs: An Empirical Study of Context Files for Agentic Coding
  2. 2026Compact Documentation for Coding Agents: A Benchmark, an Optimizer, and Why It Does Not Transfer
  3. 2025NL2Repo-Bench: Towards Long-Horizon Repository Generation Evaluation of Coding Agents
  4. 2026Harness Engineering for Agentic AI Coding Tools: An Exploratory Study
  5. 2026Constraint Decay: The Fragility of LLM Agents in Backend Code Generation
  6. 2025SWE-Compass: Towards Unified Evaluation of Agentic Coding Abilities for Large Language Models
  7. 2026The Devil Is in the Interface: Evaluating How Tool Architecture Shapes Coding Agent Behavior
  8. 2026CodeCompass: Navigating the Navigation Paradox in Agentic Code Intelligence