Skip to content
Preprint

SWE-Touch: Benchmarking Coding Agents When Users Touch the Code

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 52 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

SWE-Touch is introduced, a framework that stress-tests this setting through validated Counter-Edits: plausible edits to task-relevant code that conflict with task completion, and point to detecting workspace changes, reconciling conflicting edits with the task, and verifying the affected behavior as key capabilities for future optimization.

Abstract

Real-world software development requires coding agents to operate in shared workspaces where users may inspect and modify code during an ongoing task, yet existing repository-level benchmarks typically evaluate agents working alone or restrict user participation to messages. This leads us to ask: how do coding agents understand and respond to code changes in a shared workspace? We introduce SWE-Touch, a framework that stress-tests this setting through validated Counter-Edits: plausible edits to task-relevant code that conflict with task completion. SWE-Touch mines task-critical regions from multiple repair trajectories, uses a separate User Patch Generator to construct the edits, and injects them with contextual user messages when agents reach the relevant code. We evaluate nine coding models on SWE-bench Verified, with additional experiments on longer-horizon tasks from SWE-Bench Pro and DeepSWE. Counter-Edit lowers average resolve rate by 7.7 percentage points on SWE-bench Verified, with degradation also persisting on both longer-horizon benchmarks. Trajectory analysis links these failures to limited awareness of the evolving workspace: agents may retain conflicting code or replace it without sufficiently re-inspecting the repository and validating the revised code with targeted tests. These findings show that strong autonomous performance does not yet ensure the state awareness and adaptive behavior needed for shared-workspace collaboration, and point to detecting workspace changes, reconciling conflicting edits with the task, and verifying the affected behavior as key capabilities for future optimization.

View source

Similar papers

Jul 2026

E-Bench: Benchmarking Multi-Step Tool-Use Agents in Real-World Product Scenarios

E-Bench is introduced, a fully synthetic benchmark with 323 state-changing tasks across three product domains: Honor of Kings, QQ Music, and Tencent Meeting, and it shows that multi-step tool use remains challenging: Pass^3 stays below 60% for the strongest models, and even with code execution in the E-Bench-Code extension, reliability remains below 70%.

Weihuang Zheng, Tianyuan Zou, Eileen Ye et al. · 1 citation
Jul 2026

ICAE-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents as Interactive Project Builders

ICAE-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents under interactive project-building settings, starts from a fuzzy product requirement, simulating the dynamic paradigm with an automated User Agent, and introduces three key designs.

Zhongyuan Peng, Dan Huang, Chuyu Zhang et al. · 3 citations · ⚡1
Review Jul 2026

(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding

Coding agents (e.g., Cursor) improve developer productivity by optimizing task completion, but shifting users from writing code to prompting and reviewing may harm their understanding, impeding oversight, learning, and communication. To probe this, we have 54 students create a website with one of two AI systems: an agent that edits user code; or a chatbot where users write code alone or adapt generic code snippets. We test understanding via comprehension questions and a task where users extend their code without agents, showing: (1) While agents aid initial task completion, they harm users'code comprehension and thus do not prepare users to extend their code; (2) Low-effort agent interaction types, like copy+paste prompts and auto-accepted edits, are linked with lower comprehension; and (3) Despite self-reported weaker understanding, users still prefer coding agents because they are quick and easy to use. While users stay in the loop for coding workflows, understanding should not be forgotten. Towards this goal, we distill our analyses into future research directions for coding agent developers: dissuading low-effort prompting, creating readable code, and promoting active engagement.

Nishant Balepur, Connor Baumler, Valerie Chen et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

AppWorld-UL: Benchmarking Diverse Agent-User Interactions for Tool-Use

AppWorld-UL is introduced, a ``user-in-the-loop''benchmark of 516 challenging tasks requiring diverse agent-user interactions that systematically modify original tasks to introduce ambiguities and constraints that necessitate various types of agent-user interaction.

Junzhi Chen, H. Trivedi, Jane Pan et al. · 1 citation
Review Aug 2026

SWE-Bench ProMax: Benchmarking Agents on Large-Scale Multilingual Code Refactoring

SWE-Bench ProMax is introduced, an expert-curated, multilingual code refactoring benchmark of 170 instances drawn from real commits across seven programming languages, which presents a meaningful and unsaturated challenge for current AI coding agents.

Yuling Shi, Jingheng Xu, Kelin Fu et al. · 5 citations
Review Aug 2026

Loop Engineering: Building Blocks, Adoption, and Impact

An exploratory review of the emerging gray literature, which largely agrees on what a well-engineered loop contains: triggered agent runs bounded by machine-checkable stop conditions, persistent state files, verifier sub-agents, token budgets, and defined points of escalation to humans.

Jai Lal Lulla, Vahram Nersesyan, Seyedmoein Mohsenimofidi et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.