aiqbench analysis
This empirical study dissects the modular components of coding harnesses, revealing that context management is critical for preventing overflow in tight budget scenarios while rule-based elision offers superior efficiency. The research further demonstrates a shift in planning's role from an accuracy scaffold for weaker models to a cost-saving mechanism for stronger ones, alongside findings that bash-capable agents achieve lower costs on command-line tasks without predefined tools. These insights provide a clear framework for optimizing autonomous coding agents based on specific model capabilities and resource constraints.
An Empirical Study of Harness Design for Coding Agents
arXiv:2609.20804v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding harnesses shape how autonomous coding agents translate model capabilities into long-horizon software-engineering performance, yet existing work typically evaluates harnesses as monolithic systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear. To enable component-level comparisons, we study this question with a lightweight coding harness whose execution loop is fixed while three components are varied: planning, action space, and context management. Across four models evaluated on SWE-Bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1, we evaluate 176 matched settings spanning five context-management strategies, four context-window budgets, and targeted ablations of planning and action space. We find that: (1) Context management becomes increasingly valuable as the context-window budget tightens, with most of its benefit coming from preventing context-overflow failures. (2) Staging rule-based elision before LLM-based summarization provides the strongest overall efficiency among the context-management strategies, whereas making elided content recoverable adds machinery that models rarely use and yields no accuracy gain. (3) Planning shifts from an accuracy scaffold for weaker models to a cost saver for stronger models, with little change in accuracy. (4) Predefined tools improve performance for models with weaker bash proficiency, whereas bash-capable models can operate effectively with a bash-only interface and achieve substantially lower cost, especially on command-line-centric tasks. Trajectory-level analysis explains these effects: context management extends execution trajectories without substantially altering agent behavior, planning changes where trajectories stop, and the action space changes the granularity at which code is written. These findings inform model- and budget-aware harness design and provide a modular framework for evaluating future harness components.
Abstract:Coding harnesses shape how autonomous coding agents translate model capabilities into long-horizon software-engineering performance, yet existing work typically evaluates harnesses as monolithic systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear. To enable component-level comparisons, we study this question with a lightweight coding harness whose execution loop is fixed while three components are varied: planning, action space, and context management. Across four models evaluated on SWE-Bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1, we evaluate 176 matched settings spanning five context-management strategies, four context-window budgets, and targeted ablations of planning and action space. We find that: (1) Context management becomes increasingly valuable as the context-window budget tightens, with most of its benefit coming from preventing context-overflow failures. (2) Staging rule-based elision before LLM-based summarization provides the strongest overall efficiency among the context-management strategies, whereas making elided content recoverable adds machinery that models rarely use and yields no accuracy gain. (3) Planning shifts from an accuracy scaffold for weaker models to a cost saver for stronger models, with little change in accuracy. (4) Predefined tools improve performance for models with weaker bash proficiency, whereas bash-capable models can operate effectively with a bash-only interface and achieve substantially lower cost, especially on command-line-centric tasks. Trajectory-level analysis explains these effects: context management extends execution trajectories without substantially altering agent behavior, planning changes where trajectories stop, and the action space changes the granularity at which code is written. These findings inform model- and budget-aware harness design and provide a modular framework for evaluating future harness components.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2609.20804 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.20804v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.20804 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 351 words
Related coverage
Understanding the Benefits of Scaffolds through Computational Separations
arXiv · Oct 21, 2026
AU-Harness: An Open-Source Toolkit for Efficient and Unified Evaluation of AUdio-LLMs
arXiv · Oct 27, 2026
How Do Coding-Agent Harnesses Self-Evolve? An Empirical Study of Retrospective Adaptation
arXiv · Oct 27, 2026

[AINews] Here are 6 Clones of Jev in 2 days
Latent Space · Sep 19, 2026