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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.16859 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16859/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15763/) (2026)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02605/) (2025)
- [Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03978/) (2024)
- [CFBench: A Comprehensive Constraints-Following Benchmark for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.01122/) (2024)
- [SWE-EVO: Benchmarking Coding Agents in Long-Horizon Software Evolution Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18470/) (2025)
- [IHEval: Evaluating Language Models on Following the Instruction Hierarchy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08745/) (2025)
- [AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16944/) (2025)
- [Prompting Large Language Models to Tackle the Full Software Development Lifecycle: A Case Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08604/) (2024)
- [LIFBench: Evaluating the Instruction Following Performance and Stability of Large Language Models in Long-Context Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07037/) (2024)
- [SWE-rebench V2: Language-Agnostic SWE Task Collection at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.23866/) (2026)
- [CodeIF: Benchmarking the Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19166/) (2025)
- [CIFE: Code Instruction-Following Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.17387/) (2025)

## 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.