aiqbench analysis
This benchmark tests whether AI coding agents follow the process constraints developers set, such as modification scope, workflow order, validation steps, and reporting, not just whether their patches work. Across 19 agent configurations, the best system reached 70.1% atomic compliance but only 19.0% of tasks passed every checklist item, with failures concentrated in ordering and tool-use discipline. For readers evaluating coding agents, the main takeaway is that functional correctness overstates how acceptable an agent's behavior is in real engineering workflows.
ANCHOR: Assessing Naturalistic Constraint Hierarchies and Ordering in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding
arXiv:2610.16859v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.16859 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.16859v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16859 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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 · 334 words
