SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering

John Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Karthik Narasimhan, Ofir Press

arXiv:2405.15793v3 · This workspace stays on this version. Check arXiv for newer versions

Affiliations and author notes

Shunyu Yao
Princeton Language and Intelligence, Princeton University

Some source details need review 83 to check

Original formulas, table values and figures are preserved. Comparison can miss differences; use the original PDF to check details.

Reading view checked: 184 math expressions, 0 rendering failures; 186 of 203 images available.

Compared 161 of 414 source passages against 32 of 118 PDF pages.

Some source graphics could not be placed in the reading view. (4)
Some figure, table or graphic images are unavailable; the original paper is still accessible. (17)
A4_SSx4_p35_pic1: beyond the 200-item capture limit; capture unavailable.
A4_SSx4_p36_pic1: beyond the 200-item capture limit; capture unavailable.
A4_SSx4_p37_pic1: beyond the 200-item capture limit; capture unavailable.
S4_T3: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A1_F11: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A1_SS3_p4_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 98% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A1_F12: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A1_F13: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A3_F27: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A3_p9_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 82% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A3_F28: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A3_p12_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 55% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A3_F29: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A3_p14_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 50% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A3_F30: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A3_p17_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 82% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A3_F31: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A3_p22_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 59% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A3_F32: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A4_F33: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A4_SSx1_p5_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 95% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p9_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 96% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p11_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 89% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p13_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 98% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p15_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 96% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p16_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p20_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p22_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx1_p24_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 88% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_F34: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A4_SSx2_p10_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx2_p18_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx2_p19_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 98% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx2_p21_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 99% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx2_p23_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 98% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx2_p30_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 89% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_F35: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A4_SSx3_p6_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p10_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p20_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 95% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p26_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p27_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 98% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p29_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 95% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p30_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 92% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p32_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p34_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p36_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p38_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p40_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p42_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p44_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p46_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p48_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p50_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p52_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p54_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p62_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 94% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx3_p70_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 85% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_F36: blank, oversized or incomplete source rendering; capture unavailable.
A4_SSx4_p4_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 92% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p13_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p14_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 92% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p16_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 87% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p18_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p20_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 98% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p21_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 96% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p23_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 69% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p26_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 97% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p29_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 93% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p30_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 95% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
A4_SSx4_p34_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 96% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
This long paper was only partially compared; the original sources remain available.
Additional source conflicts need review; automatic escalation was bounded to four.

HTML block S1_p4_1 reads “$2true294$”, while the original PDF on page 2 visibly reads “2,294”; the PDF contradicts the HTML. Check PDF page 2

PDF page 4 visibly reads “2,294,” while HTML S4_p1_1 gives “$2true294$”; inspect the PDF. Check PDF page 4

HTML S5_p1_1 gives “$286$/$2true294$”, while the original PDF page 5 visibly shows “286/2,294”; the denominator differs. Check PDF page 5

HTML S5_SS2_p4_1 has the ambiguous strings “$2true294$” and “$1true185$”; PDF page 8 clearly shows “2,294” and “1,185,” but the HTML ambiguity prevents confirming agreement. Check PDF page 8

The task count and failed-edit count differ. Check PDF page 31

The linting command has different option prefixes. Check PDF page 19

The table percentage is written with a different numeric value. Check PDF page 26

186 of 203 figure, table and graphic images captured. Open original PDF

Abstract

Language model (LM) agents are increasingly being used to automate complicated tasks in digital environments. Just as humans benefit from powerful software applications, such as integrated development environments, for complex tasks like software engineering, we posit that LM agents represent a new category of end users with their own needs and abilities, and would benefit from specially-built interfaces to the software they use. We investigate how interface design affects the performance of language model agents. As a result of this exploration, we introduce SWE-agent: a system that facilitates LM agents to autonomously use computers to solve software engineering tasks. SWE-agent’s custom agent-computer interface (ACI) significantly enhances an agent’s ability to create and edit code files, navigate entire repositories, and execute tests and other programs. We evaluate SWE-agent on SWE-bench and HumanEvalFix, achieving state-of-the-art performance on both with a pass@ $1$ rate of $12.5$ % and $87.7$ %, respectively, far exceeding the previous state-of-the-art achieved with non-interactive LMs. Finally, we provide insight on how the design of the ACI can impact agents’ behavior and performance.

Recent work has demonstrated the efficacy of LM agents for code generation with execution feedback [39]. However, applying agents to more complex code tasks like software engineering remains unexplored. To solve programming tasks, LM agents are typically designed to use existing applications, such as the Linux shell or Python interpreter [53, 57, 59]. However, to perform more complex programming tasks such as software engineering [20], human engineers benefit from sophisticated applications like VSCode with powerful tools and extensions. Inspired by human-computer interaction (HCI) studies on the efficacy of user interfaces for humans [7], we investigate whether LM agents could similarly benefit from better-designed interfaces for performing software engineering tasks.

Figure 1: SWE-agent is an LM interacting with a computer through an agent-computer interface (ACI), which includes the commands the agent uses and the format of the feedback from the computer.

Consider the simple setting of an agent interacting directly with a Linux shell [59]. In practice, we find that LM agents can struggle to reliably take actions in this environment. For example, it fails to provide simple commands to edit a small file segment, and does not provide any feedback if the user makes an invalid edit. These deficits substantially hamper performance, motivating the need for an agent-computer interface (ACI), i.e., an abstraction layer between the LM agent and computer, to enhance the LM agent’s abilities in computer environments (Figure 1).

From this effort, we introduce SWE-agent, an agent composed of an LM and ACI, that can interact with a computer to solve challenging real-world software engineering problems, such as those proposed in SWE-bench [20]. In contrast to the Linux Shell’s granular, highly configurable action space, SWE-agent’s ACI instead offers a small set of simple actions for viewing, searching through and editing files. The ACI uses guardrails to prevent common mistakes, and an agent receives specific, concise feedback about a command’s effects at every turn. We show that ACIs tailored specifically for LMs outperform existing user interfaces (UIs) designed for human users, such as the Linux shell.

Using GPT-4 Turbo as a base LM, SWE-agent solves $12.47$ % of the $2true294$ SWE-bench test tasks, substantially outperforming the previous best resolve rate of $3.8$ % by a non-interactive, retrieval-augmented system [20]. We perform an ablation study on a subset of $300$ SWE-bench test instances (SWE-bench Lite) to analyze our ACI design choices. The results show that SWE-agent solves $10.7$ percentage points more instances than the baseline agent, which uses only the default Linux shell. Although our ACI was developed for GPT-4 Turbo, we show that it is portable to a different LM; SWE-agent with Claude 3 Opus can solve $10.5$ % of the benchmark tasks.

Our contributions are twofold. First, we introduce the concept of the agent-computer interface (ACI) and demonstrate how careful ACI design can substantially improve LM agent performance without modifying the underlying LM’s weights. Second, we build, evaluate, and open-source SWE-agent, a system that provides LMs an ACI for solving real-world software engineering tasks. Unlike prior works that independently explore the merits of tool use, prompting techniques, and code execution in interactive settings, our approach unifies these factors within the ACI framework. We show that crafting LM-centric interactive components has meaningful effects on downstream task performance.

An LM acts as an agent when it interacts with an environment by iteratively taking actions and receiving feedback [42, 62]. Typically, the environment has hard constraints, as in robotics, where agents control actuators in the physical world. On the other hand, digital environments can be molded by abstractions in the form of application programming interfaces and user interfaces for software and humans respectively. Naturally, existing interfaces have been designed with one of these users in mind. We argue that LM agents represent a new category of end user, with their own needs and abilities. We refer to the interface LM agents use to interact with computers as the agent-computer interface (ACI). Figure 2 illustrates how ACIs provide LM agents with important functionality to interface with computers, similar to how code editors also help humans use computers more effectively.

Figure 2: Specialized applications like IDEs (e.g., VSCode, PyCharm) make scientists and software engineers more efficient and effective at computer tasks. Similarly, ACI design aims to create a suitable interface that makes LM agents more effective at digital work such as software engineering.

Disparities in humans’ and LMs’ abilities and limitations motivates different interface design guidelines. For instance, the current generation of LMs lack the visual understanding abilities to directly operate GUI-based applications with rich visual components and signals. However, many of the features provided by these applications, such as syntax checking and navigation tools, could be useful to LM agents if they were presented in a suitable manner. Additionally, humans can flexibly ignore unnecessary information, whereas all content has a fixed cost in memory and computation for LMs and distracting context can harm performance [27]. Therefore, LM agents may be more effective at interacting with computers when provided an interface that was built informed by these differences.

Ultimately, a well-designed ACI should help the LM agent understand the state of the application given previous changes, manage history to avoid unnecessary context from prior observations, and provide actions that models can use efficiently and reliably. The ACI specifies both the commands available to the LM and how the environment state is communicated back to the LM. It also tracks the history of all previous commands and observations and, at each step, manages how these should be formatted and combined with high-level instructions into a single input for the LM.

In this paper, we assume a fixed LM and focus on designing the ACI to improve its performance. This means that we shape the actions, their documentation, and environment feedback to complement an LM’s limitations and abilities. We draw inspiration from the field of HCI, where user studies elicit insights about how compatible different interfaces are with respect to human intuition and performance [7]. We use two approaches to enhance performance on a development set: (1) manually inspect agent behavior to identify difficulties and propose improvements, and (2) run a grid search to select the best ACI configuration.

Taking these two actions resulted in several insights about design principles that seem especially important for building effective ACIs:

1.
Actions should be simple and easy to understand for agents. Many bash commands have documentation that includes dozens of options. Simple commands with a few options and concise documentation are easier for agents to use, reducing the need for demonstrations or fine-tuning. This is a defining principle for all SWE-agent commands that we describe in Section 3.
2.
Actions should be compact and efficient. Important operations (e.g., file navigation, editing) should be consolidated into as few actions as possible. Efficient actions help agents make meaningful progress towards a goal in a single step. A poor design would therefore have many simple actions that must be composed across multiple turns for a higher order operation to take effect. We show this idea in action in the Editing and Search interface analyses in Section 5.1.
3.
Environment feedback should be informative but concise. High quality feedback should provide the agent with substantive information about the current environment state (and the effect of the agent’s recent actions) without unnecessary details. For instance, when editing a file, updating the agent about revised content is helpful. Figures 3(a), 3(b) and Table 3 show this.
4.
Guardrails mitigate error propagation and hasten recovery. Like humans, LMs make mistakes when editing or searching and can struggle to recover from these errors. Building in guardrails, such as a code syntax checker that automatically detects mistakes, can help agents recognize and quickly correct errors. We show the effect of editing guardrails in Table 3.

Analysis and ablation studies in Section 5 demonstrate how alternative ACIs affect LM performance. Our studies shows how these principles appear recurrently across actions, feedback, and workflows.

Here we describe how SWE-agent provides an ACI for LMs to act as software engineering agents, enabling them to effectively search, navigate, edit, and execute code commands. The ACI comprises several principal components, including search/navigation, file viewer, file editor, and context management. At each step, SWE-agent generates a thought and a command, then incorporates the feedback from the command’s execution in the environment (ReAct; Yao et al. 62). Built atop the Linux shell, SWE-agent also allows access to common Linux commands and utilities when needed.

Search and navigation. Navigating codebases requires finding the relevant file and content. A common strategy to do this involves looking up terms that might be useful, e.g., files, functions, or class definitions mentioned in an issue. We introduce the special commands find_file, search_file, and search_dir, which output a summary of search results when searching for filenames and strings within files or directories. Figure 10 shows examples of these search result formats. The find_file command searches for filenames in the repository, while the search_file and search_dir locates strings in a file(s) of a subdirectory. Our interface encourages efficient searches by suppressing verbose results. The search commands return at most $50$ results for each search query; if a search exceeds this number, we do not report the results and instead suggest that the agent write a more specific query.

Figure 3: The file viewer and edit command are integrated. (a) The file viewer shows the agent the open file’s content with line numbers. (b) The agent invokes the edit function to replace lines 404-407 in the open file. After the edit, the file viewer shows the agent the now updated version of the file.

File viewer. After finding a file they want to view, agents use the interactive file viewer by calling the command open on the relevant file path. The file viewer presents a window of at most $100$ lines of the file at a time. The agent can move this window with the commands scroll_down and scroll_up or access a specific line with the goto command. To facilitate in-file navigation and code localization, we display: the full path of the open file, the total number of lines in the file, the number of lines omitted before and after the current window, and the line number (prepended to each visible line). Figure 3(a) shows an example of this interface.

File editor. We provide a few commands that let LMs create and edit files. The edit command works in conjunction with the file viewer, allowing agents to replace a specific range of lines in the open file. This command takes 3 required arguments: the start line, end line, and replacement text. In a single step, agents can replace all lines between the start and end lines with the replacement text, as shown in Figure 3(b). After edits are applied, the file viewer automatically displays the updated content, helping the agent observe the effects of its edit immediately without invoking additional commands. Figure 3(b) shows an example agent response, including a file edit.

Similar to how humans can use tools like syntax highlighting to help them notice format errors when editing files in an IDE, we integrate a code linter into the edit function to alert the agent of mistakes it may have introduced when editing a file. Select errors from the linter are shown to the agent along with a snippet of the file contents before/after the error was introduced. Invalid edits are discarded, and the agent is asked to try editing the file again.

Context management. The SWE-agent system uses informative prompts, error messages, and history processors to keep agent context concise and informative. Agents receive instructions, documentation, and demonstrations on the correct use of bash and ACI commands. At each step, the system instructs them to generate both a thought and an action [62]. Malformed generations trigger an error response, shown in Figure 32, asking the agent to try again, which is repeated until a valid generation is received. Once received, all past error messages except the first are omitted.

The agent’s environment responses display computer output using the template shown in Figure 30; however, if no output is generated, a specific message (“Your command ran successfully and did not produce any output”) is included to enhance clarity. To further improve context relevance, observations preceding the last $5$ are each collapsed into a single line, shown in Figure 31. By removing most content from prior observations, we maintain essential information about the plan and action history while reducing unnecessary context, which allows for more interaction cycles and avoids showing outdated file information. §A provides further implementation details.

Datasets. We primarily evaluate on the SWE-bench dataset, which includes $2true294$ task instances from $12$ different repositories of popular Python packages [20]. We report our main agent results on the full SWE-bench test set and ablations and analysis on the SWE-bench Lite test set, unless otherwise specified. SWE-bench Lite is a canonical subset of $300$ instances from SWE-bench that focus on evaluating self-contained functional bug fixes. We also test SWE-agent’s basic code editing abilities with HumanEvalFix, a short-form code debugging benchmark [32].

Models. All results, ablations, and analyses are based on two leading LMs, GPT-4 Turbo (gpt-4-1106-preview) [34] and Claude 3 Opus (claude-3-opus-20240229) [6]. We experimented with a number of additional closed and open source models, including Llama 3† and DeepSeek Coder [14], but found their performance in the agent setting to be subpar. Many LMs’ context window is too small, such as Llama 3’s context window of $8$ k. GPT-4 Turbo and Claude 3 Opus have $128$ k and $200$ k token context windows, respectively,† which provides sufficient room for the LM to interact for several turns after being fed the system prompt, issue description, and optionally, a demonstration.

Baselines. We compare SWE-agent to two baselines. The first setting is the non-interactive, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) baselines established in Jimenez et al. 20. Here, a BM25 retrieval system retrieves the most relevant codebase files using the issue as the query; given these files, the model is asked to directly generate a patch file that resolves the issue.

The second setting, called Shell-only, is adapted from the interactive coding framework introduced in Yang et al. 59. Following the InterCode environment, this baseline system asks the LM to resolve the issue by interacting with a shell process on Linux. Like SWE-agent, model prediction is generated automatically based on the final state of the codebase after interaction.

Metrics. We report % Resolved or pass $@$ $1$ as the main metric, which is the proportion of instances for which all tests pass successfully after the model generated patch is applied to the repository [20]. We also report the $ Avg. Cost metric, the API inference cost incurred by SWE-agent averaged over all successfully resolved instances. Due to budget constraints, we set the per-instance budget to $4; if a run exceeded this budget, existing edits were submitted automatically.

Configuration search. During the design process of SWE-agent, we arrived at the final ACI design through qualitative analysis of system behavior on a small set of hand-picked examples from the development split of SWE-bench. For the remaining hyperparameter choices, we performed a sweep over the window size, history processing, and decoding temperature, shown in §B.1.

Table 1
	SWE-bench		SWE-bench Lite
Model	% Resolved	$ Avg. Cost	% Resolved	$ Avg. Cost
RAG
w/ GPT-4 Turbo	1.31	0.13	2.67	0.13
w/ Claude 3 Opus	3.79	0.25	4.33	0.25
Shell-only agent
w/ GPT-4 Turbo	-	-	11.00	1.46
w/o Demonstration	-	-	7.33	0.79
SWE-agent
w/ GPT-4 Turbo	12.47	1.59	18.00	1.67
w/ Claude 3 Opus	10.46	2.59	13.00	2.18

Table 1
Model	Python	JS	Java
CodeLLaMa-instruct-13B	29.2	19.5	32.3
GPT-4	47.0	48.2	50.0
DeepseekCoder-CodeAlpaca-6.7B	49.4	51.8	45.1
WaveCoder-DS-6.7B	57.9	52.4	57.3
SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo	87.7	89.7	87.9

Table 1
Editor
edit action	15.0 $\downarrow$ 3.0
w/ linting	18.0
No edit	10.3 $\downarrow$ 7.7

Table 1
Search
Summarized	18.0
Iterative	12.0 $\downarrow$ 6.0
No search	15.7 $\downarrow$ 2.3

Table 1
File Viewer
30 lines	14.3 $\downarrow$ 3.7
100 lines	18.0
Full file	12.7 $\downarrow$ 5.3

Table 1
Context
Last 5 Obs.	18.0
Full history	15.0 $\downarrow$ 3.0
w/o demo.	16.3 $\downarrow$ 1.7

Table 1: Main results for SWE-agent performance on the full and Lite splits of the SWE-bench test set. We benchmark models in the SWE-agent, Basic CLI, and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) settings established in SWE-bench [20].
Table 2 Pass@1 results on HumanEvalFix [32]. Except for SWE-agent, we use scores as reported in Yu et al. 65.
Figure 4 SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo Pass

@k

performance across

6

runs on SWE-bench Lite.

Across all systems, SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo achieves the best performance all-around, successfully solving $12.47$ % ( $286$ / $2true294$ ) of the full SWE-bench test set and $18.00$ % ( $54$ / $300$ ) of the Lite split. As shown in Table 3, compared to RAG on Lite, SWE-agent is $8$ - $13$ x more costly but yields a $6.7$ -fold improved % Resolved rate. An LM-friendly ACI’s value is confirmed by SWE-agent’s $64$ % relative increase compared to Shell-only, both with GPT-4 Turbo.

In Table 3, SWE-agent yields strong performance on HumanEvalFix with $88.3$ % pass@1 rate. Figure 4 reveals that average performance variance is relatively low, but per-instance resolution can change considerably. More results are given in the appendix: §B.2 shows that the success rate is uncorrelated to the issue age (controlling for possible test pollution), B.5 presents more details on performance variance and pass $@k$ , and B.7 discusses extra evaluation details.

We perform several ablations of the SWE-agent interface, specifically with respect to the SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 configuration, summarized in Table 3. Our case studies shed light on interesting agent behavior along with the impact of different ACI designs.

Human user interfaces are not always suitable as agent-computer interfaces. Current LMs are vulnerable to a number of pitfalls when searching for relevant content in a Linux shell environment. Some exploration patterns (e.g., chains of cd, ls, cat) are extremely inefficient. grep or find look ups can perform better but occasionally produce many lines of irrelevant results. We hypothesize that better localization is possible with faster navigation and a more informative search interface.

Figure 5: Three different Search interfaces for task instance pvlib__pvlib-python-1224. In Shell-only, an agent performs localization using only standard bash commands and utilities. Compared to Iterative search, Summarized search shows an exhaustive list of search results and provides guidance on refining under-specified queries.

Figure 6 compares the Shell-only setting to two different search interfaces. Iterative search, directly inspired by traditional user interfaces for search, e.g., Vim or VSCode, shows results one by one via the file viewer. Agents can look through results using next and prev actions. Each result displays the matching line along with n surrounding lines of context. An advantage is that an agent can begin editing directly after seeing the relevant code in its search. However, when given a large number of search results, agents tend to look through every match exhaustively, calling next until each result has been inspected. This inefficient behavior can exhaust an agent’s cost budget or context window, leading to even worse performance than the not having additional search tools at all ( $15.7$ % $\downarrow$ 2.3 for No search vs. $12.0$ % $\downarrow$ 6.0 with Iterative search).

Compact, efficient file editing is critical to performance. SWE-agent’s file editor and viewer are designed to consolidate the editing process into a single command that enables easy multi-line edits with consistent feedback and automatically updates the agent’s view of the file after editing. In the No edit setting, editing options are restrictive and prone to errors; the primary methods available are either replacing entire files through redirection and overwriting or using utilities like sed for single-line or search-and-replace edits. Both methods have significant drawbacks. Redirection involves copying and rewriting entire files for even minor changes, which is both inefficient and error-prone. Although sed can facilitate specific edits, executing multi-line edits is cumbersome and can lead to unintended consequences that are challenging to detect. Moreover, both strategies lack immediate feedback about file updates, making these silent operations potentially confusing for models to interpret and increasing the risk of errors. Without SWE-agent’s file editor interface, performance drops to ( $10.3$ % $\downarrow$ 7.7). We also find that agents are sensitive to the number of lines the file viewer displays. Either too little content (30 lines, $14.3$ % $\downarrow$ 3.7) or too much (entire file, $12.7$ % $\downarrow$ 5.3) lowers performance.

Guardrails can improve error recovery. A prominent failure mode occurs when models repeatedly edit the same code snippet. The usual suspect for this behavior is an agent introducing a syntax error (e.g., incorrect indentation, extra parenthesis) via an errant edit. As discussed in Section 3, we add an intervention to the edit logic that lets a modification apply only if it does not produce major errors. We compare this interface with the No edit and edit w/o linting alternatives in Figure 6. This intervention improves performance considerably (without linting, $15.0$ % $\downarrow$ 3.0).

Recurring problem-solving patterns emerge when LMs are equipped with a useful, intuitive ACI. We describe several model behaviors and problem-solving patterns that can be discerned from model performance and each model’s corresponding trajectories.

Reproduction and/or localization is the first step. SWE-agent usually begins with either writing reproduction code and/or localizing the issue’s cause to specific lines of code. As shown in Figure 8, all trajectories begin with either create (reproduction) or find_file/search_dir (localization). To reproduce, models will create a new file, add reproduction code to it with an edit, then run with python; this is the most popular triple of actions in Table 8. Using this feedback along with file names and symbols in the issue description, an agent will start with a broad, directory-level keyword search, before then zooming into specific files and lines. This is reflected in Figure 22, where the most likely actions following localization sequences like (python, find_file) and (search_dir, open) are search_file and goto, indicative of how an agent “zooms in" on a bug. Extensive analysis on correlations between different groups of actions are discussed in §B.3.3

Remaining turns are mostly “edit, then execute" loops. As exhibited in Figure 8, from turn $5$ onwards, the most frequent two actions for all turns are edit and python. Captured as high probability next actions following (edit, python) in Figure 22, additional localization operations are often interspersed across these later turns, where agents might look at more in-file code with search_file, scroll_up/down, or other files altogether with search_dir, find_file. This behavior usually arises in response to new information from re-running the reproduction script. Submissions are distributed normally from turn $10$ onwards, although resolved task instances correlate more with earlier submits (see §B.3.1). A walk-through of common trajectory phases is in §B.3.2.

Editing remains challenging for agents. A non-trivial minority of edit actions raise a linting error; out of $2true294$ task instances, $1true185$ ( $51.7$ %) of SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo trajectories have $1$ + failed edits. While agents generally recover more often than not from failed edits, the odds of recovery decrease as the agent accumulates more failed edits. Recovery refers to a sequence of consecutive failed edits followed immediately by a successful edit. Any attempt at editing has a $90.5$ % chance of eventually being successful. This probability drops off to $57.2$ % after a single failed edit. More editing phenomena are discussed in §B.3.3, and data about agents’ generated fixes are in §B.6.

Agents succeed quickly and fail slowly. We find that runs submitted relatively early are much more likely to be successful compared to those submitted after a larger number of steps or cost. We show in Table 15 the distribution of resolved and unresolved instances, including only instances that did not exhaust their budget. We observe that successful runs complete earlier and at a cheaper cost than unsuccessful ones. In general, successful instances solved by SWE-agent w/ GPT 4 finish with a median cost of $ $1.21$ and $12$ steps compared to a mean of $ $2.52$ and $21$ steps for unsuccessful ones. Furthermore, we find that $93.0$ % of resolved instances are submitted before exhausting their cost budget, compared to $69.0$ % of instances overall. For these reasons, we suspect that increasing the maximum budget or token limit are unlikely to substantially increase performance. More statistics about how trajectories typically conclude are in §B.9.

Most failures are incorrect implementations. We use GPT-4o to automatically categorize unresolved trajectories (SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo on SWE-bench Lite, $n=$ $248$ ) into one of $9$ manually defined categories described in Table 9. On a hand-labeled validation set, the LM’s judgment agrees with the authors’ on $87$ % of instances. From Figure 8, about half ( $52.0$ %) of unresolved instances fall into the Incorrect Implementation or Overly Specific Implementation categories, suggesting that agents’ proposed solutions often simply fail to functionally address the issue or are insufficiently general solutions. Cascading failed edits make up another $23.4$ % of failures. More details in §B.4.

Code generation benchmarks, which evaluate models on the task of synthesizing code from natural language descriptions, have served as a long-standing bellwether for measuring LM performance [5, 1, 15, 30]. Subsequent works have built upon the code generation task formulation to contribute new benchmarks that translate problems to different (programming) languages [3, 49], incorporate third-party libraries [25, 29], introduce derivative code completion tasks [18, 32], increase test coverage [26], change the edit scope [8, 9, 64], and add robustness to dataset contamination [19]. Code generation problems are largely self-contained, with short problem descriptions ( $\sim$ 100 lines) and corresponding solutions that are similarly brief, requiring nothing more complex than basic language primitives. Tests are either handwritten or generated synthetically via fuzz testing. In recent months, the rapid development of LMs has begun to saturate many of these benchmarks. For instance, the top method solves $94.4$ % of HumanEval [70].

Gauging future trends with the code generation task paradigm can be limited by the simplicity of this setting and cost of human-in-the-loop problem creation. In response, recent efforts have demonstrated that software engineering (SE) can serve as a diverse, challenging testbed for LM evaluation [68, 20, 28]. Repository-level code editing introduces many reasoning challenges grounded in real SE subtasks, such as spotting errant code and identifying cross-file relationships and understanding codebase-specific symbols and conventions. As a field, SE has generally studied tasks in a more isolated manner; prior benchmarks tended to frame problems in isolation from the rest of a codebase [21, 23].

We use SWE-bench because it unites many separate SE tasks, such as automated program repair [10, 40, 55], bug localization [4, 58], and testing [22, 46, 56] under a single task formulation that faithfully mirrors practical SE. Furthermore, SWE-bench task instances are diverse, having been automatically collected from real GitHub issues across $12$ different repositories. In addition, SWE-bench performance is based on rigorous, execution-based evaluation with human-written unit tests.

The co-emergence of stronger LMs, increasingly challenging benchmarks, and practical use cases have together motivated a paradigm shift in LMs’ inference setting. Instead of traditional zero/few-shot generation, LM agents [17, 42, 47, 54] that interact with a real/virtual world have proliferated as the default setting for web navigation [24, 33, 36, 41, 45, 61, 62, 71], computer control [35, 53, 57], and code generation tasks [16, 50, 63].

Interaction and code generation are increasingly used together, with code as the modality of choice for actions [48, 59], tool construction [13, 51, 69], and reasoning [39, 66, 67]. Coding agents have also been applied to offensive security [11, 37, 60], theorem proving [44], and clinical tasks [38, 43, 52]. To the best of our knowledge, SWE-agent is the first work to explore language agents for end-to-end software engineering (SE).

We introduce SWE-agent, an agent composed of an LM and ACI capable of autonomously solving software engineering tasks. Through our design methodology, results, and analysis, we demonstrate the value of ACIs tailored to leverage LMs’ strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. Beyond empirical applications, we hope the further study of ACIs can also make principled use of and contribute to our understanding of language models and agents, analogous to the synergy between human-computer interaction (HCI) and psychology [2]. Humans and LMs have different characteristics, training objectives, specialities, and limitations [12, 31], and the interaction design processes can be seen as systematic behavioral experimentation that could reveal more insights into these differences towards establishing a comparative understanding of human and artificial intelligence.

We thank Austin W. Hanjie, Sam Ainsworth, Xindi Wu, Yuhan Liu, Mengzhou Xia, Dan Friedman, Tianyu Gao, Adithya Bhaskar, Aatmik Gupta, Louisa Nyhus, Alisa Liu, Ori Yoran and Richard Zhu for their valuable feedback and advice. We would also like to thank the broader Princeton Language and Intelligence community for supporting our work. We acknowledge support from an Oracle Collaborative Research award and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2239363. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

References

[1] J. Austin, A. Odena, M. Nye, M. Bosma, H. Michalewski, D. Dohan, E. Jiang, C. Cai, M. Terry, Q. Le, and C. Sutton. Program synthesis with large language models, 2021.
[2] J. M. Carroll. Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. Annual review of psychology, 48(1):61–83, 1997.
[3] F. Cassano, J. Gouwar, D. Nguyen, S. Nguyen, L. Phipps-Costin, D. Pinckney, M.-H. Yee, Y. Zi, C. J. Anderson, M. Q. Feldman, A. Guha, M. Greenberg, and A. Jangda. Multipl-e: A scalable and extensible approach to benchmarking neural code generation, 2022.
[4] S. Chakraborty, Y. Li, M. Irvine, R. Saha, and B. Ray. Entropy guided spectrum based bug localization using statistical language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06947, 2018.
[5] M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. de Oliveira Pinto, and J. K. et. al. Evaluating large language models trained on code, 2021.
[6] W.-L. Chiang, L. Zheng, Y. Sheng, A. N. Angelopoulos, T. Li, D. Li, H. Zhang, B. Zhu, M. Jordan, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference, 2024.
[7] A. Cooper, R. Reimann, and D. Cronin. About face 3: the essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 2007. ISBN 9780470084113.
[8] Y. Ding, Z. Wang, W. U. Ahmad, H. Ding, M. Tan, N. Jain, M. K. Ramanathan, R. Nallapati, P. Bhatia, D. Roth, and B. Xiang. Crosscodeeval: A diverse and multilingual benchmark for cross-file code completion. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=wgDcbBMSfh.Source
[9] X. Du, M. Liu, K. Wang, H. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Chen, J. Feng, C. Sha, X. Peng, and Y. Lou. Classeval: A manually-crafted benchmark for evaluating llms on class-level code generation, 2023.
[10] Z. Fan, X. Gao, M. Mirchev, A. Roychoudhury, and S. H. Tan. Automated repair of programs from large language models, 2023.
[11] R. Fang, R. Bindu, A. Gupta, Q. Zhan, and D. Kang. Llm agents can autonomously hack websites, 2024.
[12] T. L. Griffiths. Understanding human intelligence through human limitations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11):873–883, 2020.
[13] Y. Gu, Y. Shu, H. Yu, X. Liu, Y. Dong, J. Tang, J. Srinivasa, H. Latapie, and Y. Su. Middleware for llms: Tools are instrumental for language agents in complex environments, 2024.
[14] D. Guo, Q. Zhu, D. Yang, Z. Xie, K. Dong, W. Zhang, G. Chen, X. Bi, Y. Wu, Y. K. Li, F. Luo, Y. Xiong, and W. Liang. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming – the rise of code intelligence. CoRR, abs/2401.14196, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14196.Source
[15] D. Hendrycks, S. Basart, S. Kadavath, M. Mazeika, A. Arora, E. Guo, C. Burns, S. Puranik, H. He, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt. Measuring coding challenge competence with apps, 2021.
[16] S. Holt, M. R. Luyten, and M. van der Schaar. L2MAC: Large language model automatic computer for unbounded code generation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=EhrzQwsV4K.Source
[17] S. Hong, M. Zhuge, J. Chen, X. Zheng, Y. Cheng, C. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, L. Zhou, C. Ran, L. Xiao, C. Wu, and J. Schmidhuber. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework, 2023.
[18] Q. Huang, J. Vora, P. Liang, and J. Leskovec. Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation, 2024.
[19] N. Jain, K. Han, A. Gu, W.-D. Li, F. Yan, T. Zhang, S. Wang, A. Solar-Lezama, K. Sen, and I. Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code, 2024.
[20] C. E. Jimenez, J. Yang, A. Wettig, S. Yao, K. Pei, O. Press, and K. R. Narasimhan. SWE-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=VTF8yNQM66.Source
[21] R. Just, D. Jalali, and M. D. Ernst. Defects4J: A Database of existing faults to enable controlled testing studies for Java programs. In ISSTA 2014, Proceedings of the 2014 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pages 437–440, San Jose, CA, USA, July 2014. Tool demo.
[22] S. Kang, J. Yoon, and S. Yoo. Large language models are few-shot testers: Exploring llm-based general bug reproduction, 2023.
[23] R.-M. Karampatsis and C. Sutton. How often do single-statement bugs occur? the manysstubs4j dataset. 2020 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pages 573–577, 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:173188438.Source
[24] J. Y. Koh, R. Lo, L. Jang, V. Duvvur, M. C. Lim, P.-Y. Huang, G. Neubig, S. Zhou, R. Salakhutdinov, and D. Fried. Visualwebarena: Evaluating multimodal agents on realistic visual web tasks, 2024.
[25] Y. Lai, C. Li, Y. Wang, T. Zhang, R. Zhong, L. Zettlemoyer, S. W. tau Yih, D. Fried, S. Wang, and T. Yu. Ds-1000: A natural and reliable benchmark for data science code generation, 2022.
[26] J. Liu, C. S. Xia, Y. Wang, and L. Zhang. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01210, 2023a.
[27] N. F. Liu, K. Lin, J. Hewitt, A. Paranjape, M. Bevilacqua, F. Petroni, and P. Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts, 2023b.
[28] T. Liu, C. Xu, and J. McAuley. Repobench: Benchmarking repository-level code auto-completion systems. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024a. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=pPjZIOuQuF.Source
[29] Y. Liu, X. Tang, Z. Cai, J. Lu, Y. Zhang, Y. Shao, Z. Deng, H. Hu, K. An, R. Huang, S. Si, S. Chen, H. Zhao, L. Chen, Y. Wang, T. Liu, Z. Jiang, B. Chang, Y. Qin, W. Zhou, Y. Zhao, A. Cohan, and M. Gerstein. Ml-bench: Evaluating large language models for code generation in repository-level machine learning tasks, 2024b.
[30] S. Lu, D. Guo, S. Ren, J. Huang, A. Svyatkovskiy, A. Blanco, C. Clement, D. Drain, D. Jiang, D. Tang, G. Li, L. Zhou, L. Shou, L. Zhou, M. Tufano, M. Gong, M. Zhou, N. Duan, N. Sundaresan, S. K. Deng, S. Fu, and S. Liu. Codexglue: A machine learning benchmark dataset for code understanding and generation, 2021.
[31] R. T. McCoy, S. Yao, D. Friedman, M. Hardy, and T. L. Griffiths. Embers of autoregression: Understanding large language models through the problem they are trained to solve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13638, 2023.
[32] N. Muennighoff, Q. Liu, A. R. Zebaze, Q. Zheng, B. Hui, T. Y. Zhuo, S. Singh, X. Tang, L. V. Werra, and S. Longpre. Octopack: Instruction tuning code large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=mw1PWNSWZP.Source
[33] R. Nakano, J. Hilton, S. Balaji, J. Wu, L. Ouyang, C. Kim, C. Hesse, S. Jain, V. Kosaraju, W. Saunders, X. Jiang, K. Cobbe, T. Eloundou, G. Krueger, K. Button, M. Knight, B. Chess, and J. Schulman. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2022.
[34] OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, R. Avila, I. Babuschkin, S. Balaji, V. Balcom, P. Baltescu, H. Bao, M. Bavarian, J. Belgum, I. Bello, J. Berdine, G. Bernadett-Shapiro, C. Berner, L. Bogdonoff, O. Boiko, M. Boyd, A.-L. Brakman, G. Brockman, T. Brooks, M. Brundage, K. Button, T. Cai, R. Campbell, A. Cann, B. Carey, C. Carlson, R. Carmichael, B. Chan, C. Chang, F. Chantzis, D. Chen, S. Chen, R. Chen, J. Chen, M. Chen, B. Chess, C. Cho, C. Chu, H. W. Chung, D. Cummings, J. Currier, Y. Dai, C. Decareaux, T. Degry, N. Deutsch, D. Deville, A. Dhar, D. Dohan, S. Dowling, S. Dunning, A. Ecoffet, A. Eleti, T. Eloundou, D. Farhi, L. Fedus, N. Felix, S. P. Fishman, J. Forte, I. Fulford, L. Gao, E. Georges, C. Gibson, V. Goel, T. Gogineni, G. Goh, R. Gontijo-Lopes, J. Gordon, M. Grafstein, S. Gray, R. Greene, J. Gross, S. S. Gu, Y. Guo, C. Hallacy, J. Han, J. Harris, Y. He, M. Heaton, J. Heidecke, C. Hesse, A. Hickey, W. Hickey, P. Hoeschele, B. Houghton, K. Hsu, S. Hu, X. Hu, J. Huizinga, S. Jain, S. Jain, J. Jang, A. Jiang, R. Jiang, H. Jin, D. Jin, S. Jomoto, B. Jonn, H. Jun, T. Kaftan, Łukasz Kaiser, A. Kamali, I. Kanitscheider, N. S. Keskar, T. Khan, L. Kilpatrick, J. W. Kim, C. Kim, Y. Kim, J. H. Kirchner, J. Kiros, M. Knight, D. Kokotajlo, Łukasz Kondraciuk, A. Kondrich, A. Konstantinidis, K. Kosic, G. Krueger, V. Kuo, M. Lampe, I. Lan, T. Lee, J. Leike, J. Leung, D. Levy, C. M. Li, R. Lim, M. Lin, S. Lin, M. Litwin, T. Lopez, R. Lowe, P. Lue, A. Makanju, K. Malfacini, S. Manning, T. Markov, Y. Markovski, B. Martin, K. Mayer, A. Mayne, B. McGrew, S. M. McKinney, C. McLeavey, P. McMillan, J. McNeil, D. Medina, A. Mehta, J. Menick, L. Metz, A. Mishchenko, P. Mishkin, V. Monaco, E. Morikawa, D. Mossing, T. Mu, M. Murati, O. Murk, D. Mély, A. Nair, R. Nakano, R. Nayak, A. Neelakantan, R. Ngo, H. Noh, L. Ouyang, C. O’Keefe, J. Pachocki, A. Paino, J. Palermo, A. Pantuliano, G. Parascandolo, J. Parish, E. Parparita, A. Passos, M. Pavlov, A. Peng, A. Perelman, F. de Avila Belbute Peres, M. Petrov, H. P. de Oliveira Pinto, Michael, Pokorny, M. Pokrass, V. H. Pong, T. Powell, A. Power, B. Power, E. Proehl, R. Puri, A. Radford, J. Rae, A. Ramesh, C. Raymond, F. Real, K. Rimbach, C. Ross, B. Rotsted, H. Roussez, N. Ryder, M. Saltarelli, T. Sanders, S. Santurkar, G. Sastry, H. Schmidt, D. Schnurr, J. Schulman, D. Selsam, K. Sheppard, T. Sherbakov, J. Shieh, S. Shoker, P. Shyam, S. Sidor, E. Sigler, M. Simens, J. Sitkin, K. Slama, I. Sohl, B. Sokolowsky, Y. Song, N. Staudacher, F. P. Such, N. Summers, I. Sutskever, J. Tang, N. Tezak, M. B. Thompson, P. Tillet, A. Tootoonchian, E. Tseng, P. Tuggle, N. Turley, J. Tworek, J. F. C. Uribe, A. Vallone, A. Vijayvergiya, C. Voss, C. Wainwright, J. J. Wang, A. Wang, B. Wang, J. Ward, J. Wei, C. Weinmann, A. Welihinda, P. Welinder, J. Weng, L. Weng, M. Wiethoff, D. Willner, C. Winter, S. Wolrich, H. Wong, L. Workman, S. Wu, J. Wu, M. Wu, K. Xiao, T. Xu, S. Yoo, K. Yu, Q. Yuan, W. Zaremba, R. Zellers, C. Zhang, M. Zhang, S. Zhao, T. Zheng, J. Zhuang, W. Zhuk, and B. Zoph. Gpt-4 technical report, 2023.
[35] C. Packer, S. Wooders, K. Lin, V. Fang, S. G. Patil, I. Stoica, and J. E. Gonzalez. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems, 2024.
[36] O. Press, M. Zhang, S. Min, L. Schmidt, N. Smith, and M. Lewis. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. In H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5687–5711, Singapore, Dec. 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.378. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.378.Source
[37] M. Shao, B. Chen, S. Jancheska, B. Dolan-Gavitt, S. Garg, R. Karri, and M. Shafique. An empirical evaluation of llms for solving offensive security challenges, 2024.
[38] W. Shi, R. Xu, Y. Zhuang, Y. Yu, J. Zhang, H. Wu, Y. Zhu, J. Ho, C. Yang, and M. D. Wang. Ehragent: Code empowers large language models for few-shot complex tabular reasoning on electronic health records, 2024.
[39] N. Shinn, F. Cassano, E. Berman, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023.
[40] D. Sobania, M. Briesch, C. Hanna, and J. Petke. An analysis of the automatic bug fixing performance of chatgpt, 2023.
[41] A. Sridhar, R. Lo, F. F. Xu, H. Zhu, and S. Zhou. Hierarchical prompting assists large language model on web navigation, 2023.
[42] T. Sumers, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and T. L. Griffiths. Cognitive architectures for language agents, 2023.
[43] X. Tang, A. Zou, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, Y. Zhao, X. Zhang, A. Cohan, and M. Gerstein. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning, 2024.
[44] A. Thakur, G. Tsoukalas, Y. Wen, J. Xin, and S. Chaudhuri. An in-context learning agent for formal theorem-proving, 2024.
[45] R. Thoppilan, D. D. Freitas, J. Hall, N. Shazeer, A. Kulshreshtha, H.-T. Cheng, A. Jin, T. Bos, L. Baker, Y. Du, Y. Li, H. Lee, H. S. Zheng, A. Ghafouri, M. Menegali, Y. Huang, M. Krikun, D. Lepikhin, J. Qin, D. Chen, Y. Xu, Z. Chen, A. Roberts, M. Bosma, V. Zhao, Y. Zhou, C.-C. Chang, I. Krivokon, W. Rusch, M. Pickett, P. Srinivasan, L. Man, K. Meier-Hellstern, M. R. Morris, T. Doshi, R. D. Santos, T. Duke, J. Soraker, B. Zevenbergen, V. Prabhakaran, M. Diaz, B. Hutchinson, K. Olson, A. Molina, E. Hoffman-John, J. Lee, L. Aroyo, R. Rajakumar, A. Butryna, M. Lamm, V. Kuzmina, J. Fenton, A. Cohen, R. Bernstein, R. Kurzweil, B. Aguera-Arcas, C. Cui, M. Croak, E. Chi, and Q. Le. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications, 2022.
[46] J. Wang, Y. Huang, C. Chen, Z. Liu, S. Wang, and Q. Wang. Software testing with large language model: Survey, landscape, and vision, 2023a.
[47] L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, X. Chen, Y. Lin, W. X. Zhao, Z. Wei, and J. Wen. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6), Mar. 2024a. ISSN 2095-2236. doi: 10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1.Source
[48] X. Wang, Y. Chen, L. Yuan, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, H. Peng, and H. Ji. Executable code actions elicit better llm agents, 2024b.
[49] Z. Wang, G. Cuenca, S. Zhou, F. F. Xu, and G. Neubig. Mconala: A benchmark for code generation from multiple natural languages, 2023b.
[50] Z. Wang, S. Zhou, D. Fried, and G. Neubig. Execution-based evaluation for open-domain code generation, 2023c.
[51] Z. Wang, D. Fried, and G. Neubig. Trove: Inducing verifiable and efficient toolboxes for solving programmatic tasks, 2024c.
[52] M. Wornow, A. Narayan, K. Opsahl-Ong, Q. McIntyre, N. H. Shah, and C. Re. Automating the enterprise with foundation models, 2024.
[53] Z. Wu, C. Han, Z. Ding, Z. Weng, Z. Liu, S. Yao, T. Yu, and L. Kong. Os-copilot: Towards generalist computer agents with self-improvement, 2024.
[54] Z. Xi, W. Chen, X. Guo, W. He, Y. Ding, B. Hong, M. Zhang, J. Wang, S. Jin, E. Zhou, R. Zheng, X. Fan, X. Wang, L. Xiong, Y. Zhou, W. Wang, C. Jiang, Y. Zou, X. Liu, Z. Yin, S. Dou, R. Weng, W. Cheng, Q. Zhang, W. Qin, Y. Zheng, X. Qiu, X. Huang, and T. Gui. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey, 2023.
[55] C. S. Xia and L. Zhang. Less training, more repairing please: revisiting automated program repair via zero-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 959–971, 2022.
[56] C. S. Xia, M. Paltenghi, J. L. Tian, M. Pradel, and L. Zhang. Universal fuzzing via large language models. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, 2023.
[57] T. Xie, D. Zhang, J. Chen, X. Li, S. Zhao, R. Cao, T. J. Hua, Z. Cheng, D. Shin, F. Lei, Y. Liu, Y. Xu, S. Zhou, S. Savarese, C. Xiong, V. Zhong, and T. Yu. Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments, 2024.
[58] A. Z. H. Yang, C. Le Goues, R. Martins, and V. Hellendoorn. Large language models for test-free fault localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400702174. doi: 10.1145/3597503.3623342. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3597503.3623342.Source
[59] J. Yang, A. Prabhakar, K. R. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Intercode: Standardizing and benchmarking interactive coding with execution feedback. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023a. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=fvKaLF1ns8.Source
[60] J. Yang, A. Prabhakar, S. Yao, K. Pei, and K. R. Narasimhan. Language agents as hackers: Evaluating cybersecurity skills with capture the flag. In Multi-Agent Security Workshop@ NeurIPS’23, 2023b.
[61] S. Yao, H. Chen, J. Yang, and K. Narasimhan. Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents, 2023a.
[62] S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. R. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X.Source
[63] P. Yin, W.-D. Li, K. Xiao, A. Rao, Y. Wen, K. Shi, J. Howland, P. Bailey, M. Catasta, H. Michalewski, A. Polozov, and C. Sutton. Natural language to code generation in interactive data science notebooks, 2022.
[64] H. Yu, B. Shen, D. Ran, J. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Y. Ma, G. Liang, Y. Li, T. Xie, and Q. Wang. Codereval: A benchmark of pragmatic code generation with generative pre-trained models. In International Conference on Software Engineering, 2023a. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256459413.Source
[65] Z. Yu, X. Zhang, N. Shang, Y. Huang, C. Xu, Y. Zhao, W. Hu, and Q. Yin. Wavecoder: Widespread and versatile enhanced instruction tuning with refined data generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14187, 2023b.
[66] E. Zelikman, Q. Huang, G. Poesia, N. D. Goodman, and N. Haber. Parsel: Algorithmic reasoning with language models by composing decompositions, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10561.Source
[67] E. Zelikman, E. Lorch, L. Mackey, and A. T. Kalai. Self-taught optimizer (stop): Recursively self-improving code generation, 2024.
[68] F. Zhang, B. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Keung, J. Liu, D. Zan, Y. Mao, J.-G. Lou, and W. Chen. Repocoder: Repository-level code completion through iterative retrieval and generation. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=q09vTY1Cqh.Source
[69] S. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Liu, L. Song, C. Wang, R. Krishna, and Q. Wu. Training language model agents without modifying language models, 2024.
[70] A. Zhou, K. Yan, M. Shlapentokh-Rothman, H. Wang, and Y.-X. Wang. Language agent tree search unifies reasoning acting and planning in language models, 2023a.
[71] S. Zhou, F. F. Xu, H. Zhu, X. Zhou, R. Lo, A. Sridhar, X. Cheng, Y. Bisk, D. Fried, U. Alon, and G. Neubig. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents, 2023b.

In the appendix, we provide additional analyses and more extensive discussions about SWE-agent, agent-computer interface (ACI) design, and model performance on various evaluation benchmarks. We also provide several thorough case studies of SWE-agent behavior on select task instances. Data, code, and leaderboard at swe-agent.com.

Figure 9: An overview over the structure of a trajectory: We first present the system prompt, demonstration (optional), and issue statement. The agent then interacts in turn with the environment. Past observations may be collapsed, i.e. we truncate any long output, as described in Section 3.

In this section, we go into greater discussion about the design methodology, appearance, and implementation of each of the SWE-agent components. As described in Section 3, the SWE-agent interface consists of several components that enable agents to accomplish key sub-tasks that are fundamental to solving software engineering problems. These are generally the following:

1.
Localization: Identify file(s)/line(s) causing the issue.
2.
Editing: Generate fixes addressing the given issue.
3.
Testing: Write new scripts or modify existing test files to reproduce the issue and/or verify if fixes are correct.

To enable LM-based agents to efficiently carry out these individual functions and progress towards the overarching goal of resolving a codebase issue, we provide a file viewer, file editor, search / navigation system, and context management system. In Section A.1, we provide a thorough breakdown of each of these components. In Section A.2, we discuss the technical design decisions and challenges of building SWE-agent. In Section A.3, we discuss how SWE-agent is configured to support the final interface, along with how SWE-agent is built to enable easy extensibility and customization to alter the interface.

In this section, we revisit each component discussed in Section 3. Per section, we first briefly review the component. We then discuss the underlying motivation for the component with respect to existing software tools. Finally, we note any additional thoughts that influenced the design process of the component with some occasional discussion of what aspects of the component heavily influence language model behavior.

For a quick, text-free overview, comprehensive documentation for all commands, their usage, and docstrings are included in Table 4. Figure 9 visualizes the message history for SWE-agent. Each prompt template is discussed thoroughly in Section C.

As discussed in Section 3, the File Viewer is fundamental to a language agent’s ability to understand file content and understand how different programmatic entities relate to one another. The File Viewer refers to an interface that consists of the four commands, as shown in Table 4, and a customized standard output for displaying n lines of a file at a time. Using the file viewer, an agent can look at n lines of a file at a time and jump around the file. The File Viewer enables agents to perform fine-grained localization steps and also understand relationships between intra-file entities.

First, we discuss why existing software systems and graphical user interfaces are sub-optimal for LM use. In a Shell-only setting, there are several commands that can be used to inspect file content. However, out of the box command line tools are sub-optimal or limiting for language agents for several reasons. First, commands that print files to standard output (e.g. cat, printf) can easily flood a language agent’s context window with too much file content, the majority of which is usually irrelevant to the issue. Enabling a language agent to filter out distractions and focus on relevant code snippets is crucial to generating effective edits. While commands like head and tail reduce length to the first/last n lines, it is not intuitive to use bash commands to perform in-file navigation. It is either impossible or requires a long list of arguments to show specific file lines. Furthermore, since such Bash commands are stateless, “scrolling" up/down relative to the current file position typically requires regenerating the same lengthy command with minor changes. Interactive tools like more and less accommodate this, but (1) representing navigation actions (multiple key up/down clicks) is intuitive for humans, but is verbose and costly for language agents, and (2) even if jumping to a specific line number is allowed, it is not possible to quickly identify what classes/methods/symbols are declared in a file and then immediately go to their definitions.

Original Table 4 — Table 4: In additional to the standard Linux Bash commands, we provide SWE-agent with specialized tools, including an interactive file viewer, search functionalities, and edit tools for the open file. Required arguments are enclosed in <> and optional arguments are in []. The last column shows the documentation presented to the LM.

Table 4
Category	Command	Documentation
File viewer	open <path> [<line_number>]	Opens the file at the given path in the editor. If line_number is provided, the window will move to include that line.
	goto <line_number>	Moves the window to show line_number.
	scroll_down	Moves the window up 100 lines.
	scroll_up	Moves the window down 100 lines.
Search tools	search_file <search_term> [<file>]	Searches for search_term in file. If file is not provided, searches in the current open file.
	search_dir <search_term> [<dir>]	Searches for search_term in all files in dir. If dir is not provided, searches in the current directory.
	find_file <file_name> [<dir>]	Finds all files with the given name in dir. If dir is not provided, searches in the current directory.
File editing	edit <n>:<m> <replacement_text> end_of_edit	Replaces lines n through m (inclusive) with the given text in the open file. All of the replacement_text will be entered, so make sure your indentation is formatted properly. Python files will be checked for syntax errors after the edit. If an error is found, the edit will not be executed. Reading the error message and modifying your command is recommended as issuing the same command will return the same error.
	create <filename>	Creates and opens a new file with the given name.
Task	submit	Generates and submits the patch from all previous edits and closes the shell.

There are a couple features of the File Viewer interface that make it friendlier and more operable than the Shell-only setting. First, the File Viewer standard output contextualizes code snippets with prepended line numbers and indicators of the number of lines above/below the current region. These details give a more focused view of a file without compromising easy viewing of other parts of the codebase. This kind of file presentation also makes precise and consistent editing commands possible, as we discuss more thoroughly in the following section.

Another advantage of the File Viewer is that the commands are designed to be complementary and grounded in the File Viewer standard output. This saves the model from having to do repetitive or additional actions that unnecessarily increase the potential for error. As a concrete example, if an agent used a sed command to view the first $100$ lines of a file and wants to look at the next $100$ lines, it will have to recalculate parameters such as the start line and end line and reflect these updates correctly in the subsequent generation. As a rule of thumb, reducing the need for models to do this arithmetic by constructing actions and standard output that complement one another and build upon the effects of prior actions is highly preferable.

Figure 10: The File Viewer and Search components of the SWE-agent interface. The corresponding commands for each component are shown in blue. These examples are copied from trajectories generated by SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo on the pvlib__pvlib-python-1603 task instance.

The File Editor, working in conjunction with the File Viewer, primarily refers to the edit command and the guardrails it enforces to protect models against self-incurred cascading edit errors. Editing and testing are crucial to language agents’ success on programming tasks, and a well-designed interface directly influences how well an agent’s capabilities can be elicited. In other words, a bad interface undermines model performance.

As discussed in Section 3, editing can be very difficult in a Shell-only setting. Built in commands (e.g., sed) often require a lengthy list of arguments, and the mis-specification of an argument can easily throw a model off track as it attempts to correct self-incurred errors. We also observe that when agents use such commands directly, they struggle with the arithmetic skills required to generate an edit. Details such as including the correct indentation level, inserting delimiters at specific points in a line, and adhering to stylistic preferences of the codebase all require some amount of planning or calculation. Similar to the Shell-only file viewing process, file editing may also require repeating many commands. For instance, performing a multi-line edit can only be represented as multiple sed calls with requisite, delicate tweaks to the arguments for every turn. Furthermore, as referenced in Section 5.1, editing in Shell-only is usually a “silent" procedure. Confirming whether an edit succeeded and viewing its effects requires additional steps that can bloat the editing process with extra, needless commands.

The edit command, documented in Table 4, addresses the Shell-only failure modes by being grounded in the File Viewer standard output. The line numbers argument eliminates the need for any additional arithmetic, and the find-and-replace edit mechanism is a format that existing models are more used to. With this functionality, agents can also perform multi-line edits in a single action.

Finally, as mentioned in Section 5.2, an important feature of the edit command is that it does not apply changes which incur a linting error. A fair and verified assumption we make when considering this feature is that the original codebase associated with each task instance is well-formed. In other words, we assume that codebase maintainers will only push syntactically sound code that can be compiled successfully. When an agent issues an edit, it is applied to the codebase. Then, we run the following linting command (CURRENT_FILE refers to the file that is currently open):

flake8 ---isolated ---select=F821,F822,F831,E111,E112,E113,E999,E902 "$CURRENT_FILE" 2>&1

The arguments for select are error codes that refer to syntax issues such as indentation. F $821$ and F $822$ indicate undefined names/symbols. F $831$ indicates a duplicate argument in a function definition. E $111$ , E $112$ , E $113$ are indentation errors. E $999$ denotes a syntax error and an E $902$ occurs if flake $8$ cannot read the source file.

If the edit does not introduce any of these errors, this command will produce no output. The edit is kept and the updated file content is shown using the File Viewer centered around the lines the edit occurred. If however the linting command produces output, which indicates the edit introduces a syntax error, the edit is reverted. In place of the file viewer, a message shown in Figure 11 is displayed to the agent which shows the error that was caused, what the edit would have looked like, and the original file content. During the development process, we experimented with variations to this message, including the omission of one or more parts. Our takeaway was that having all three messages is helpful. Without the error type, the agent might misdiagnose what the mistake was. Without a snippet of the changed file content, the agent will re-issue the same command more frequently. Without a snippet of the original file content, the agent has to attend to the same content from several turns ago; agents also sometimes generate edit’s with respect to wrong, errant file content because it is from a more recent turn.

Graphic from the paper; its text follows

Figure 11 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 11: A linting error message. This is emitted if a model generates an edit command that introduces a syntax error into the codebase. The error message shows the before and after of the proposed edit along with what error messages were thrown. The problem with this edit is that it omits the orientation_strategy field in its edit of the basic_chain method definition.

The editing guardrail has a drawback. To a certain degree, it forces some edits to be done in a particular order. For instance, in Figure 11, if the model’s intention was in fact to remove the orientation_strategy argument, due to the SWE-agent editing guardrails, it would have to remove all references from the function implementation either at the same time in a single action, or before removing it from the method header if split into two separate actions. For this particular scenario, the latter is necessary because the file snippet is not large enough to show the entirety of the basic_chain implementation. This example highlights the trade-offs between the flexibility and guardrails of a command. Deciding whether to introduce a guardrail depends on how well it reduces common model errors compared to whether such restrictions hamper models’ preferred workflows.

The File Viewer and File Editor together allow agents to make edits, write tests, and perform localization at a file level. The Search & navigation module complements these capabilities by giving agents the tools to perform keyword-driven localization at both a directory level and file level.

As discussed, the main struggles with using built in Shell-only search commands such as grep and find are (1) given a general enough term, they are prone to producing too many search results that can consume an inordinate amount of space in the context window, and (2) they are highly configurable, making search result outcomes potentially inconsistent in appearance. The alternative to these search utilities is to navigate the file system directly with cd and look at what’s in each folder with variations of ls and cat; this kind of approach can take a large number of turns without yielding any particularly useful information.

Figure 10 visualizes the standard output for the three different search commands. The search_dir and find_file helps agents perform directory level searches. The reason we provide two commands is due to the kinds of keywords that are present in an issue description (e.g., class references, file names). The search_file command allows agents to search for terms at a file-level, which is helpful for efficient fine-grained localization. Taking a step back, the goal of these search commands is to make it easy for the agent to utilize any signal (e.g., line number, stack trace, natural language) about the root cause of an issue that may be present in the issue description or codebase. Once again, simpler command usage patterns with consistent output formats are easier for agents to use and reduces the chance for mistakes or irrelevant outputs.

The main guardrail in place for all three search commands is curbing the number of search results to $50$ or fewer. The downside is that reporting an error forces the model to generate another search query which can be an expensive operation. This reflects a trade-off between keeping observations concise and making additional calls to the base LM.

The SWE-agent codebase is generally composed of three modules: the environment, the agent, and the logging mechanism for saving task episodes into trajectories and patch generations.

Environment. The SWE-agent environment is heavily influenced by the InterCode library [59]. For the general pipeline of agent interactions with the environment, our work directly adopts InterCode’s interactive coding task formulation. The environment integrates large parts of the interaction handling logic from the InterCode-Bash environment, which is essentially the Shell-only setting referenced in the paper. As a part of this adoption, SWE-agent also uses Docker containers to ensure reproducible and safe execution. Because of this, SWE-agent’s infrastructure makes it easy for a user to swap out the Dockerfile (a domain specific language for defining a container) to support other codebases and programming languages beyond the scope of SWE-bench task instances. One difference is that SWE-agent makes minor adjustments to the underlying communication logic that transfers actions and observations between the Docker container and agent entity.

Agent. Beyond serving as an agentic wrapper for facilitating multi-turn queries from an LM, the agent module defines the functions that render the ACI (e.g., context management, commands, interface logic, input/output format) and supports inference for closed/open, API-based/local language models. The main workflow is to define an interface as a class and/or set of commands, which can then be specified via a configuration file, discussed more thoroughly in Section A.3. The commands for the top performing SWE-agent with GPT 4 configuration are shown in Table 4.

Logging. For each task episode, the main artifacts produced are the trajectory, which contains a history of the interactions between the agent and environment, and the final patch generation, which can represents a summary of the changes proposed by the agent during the interaction. The patch generation can be used directly for SWE-bench [20] evaluation.

The SWE-agent system is instantiated by three components: an LM, a SWE-bench style dataset or GitHub issue, and a configuration file. The configuration file serves to specify the design of the ACI. Iteratively refining the configuration file is the main way we achieved better agent performance and carried out different analyses for the main paper. In this section, we will present a thorough review of what a SWE-agent configuration file looks like.

An agent-computer interface is generally made up of four categories of configurable components:

1.
Prompt templates: These prompt templates are used to inform the language model of the task setting, show the list of available commands, augment environment responses with the values of state variables, and provide the initial task setting.
2.
Command files: These files contain the source code of bash or Python functions and scripts. Commands are easily modified, added, and removed through manipulating these files’ code contents directly. Documentation added in these files can also be injected into prompts to inform the model of the available commands.
3.
Control flow: Methods for parsing model responses and processing history can be specified through these configuration arguments.
4.
Environment variables: Initial values of variables that may interact with commands and the shell can also be specified in the configuration.

In the following Figure 12, we include an annotated example of the contents of a configuration file.

Figure 12 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 12: An example of the configuration file that defines the SWE-agent ACI. A configuration is represented as a single .yaml file, allowing you to define the commands that agents may use, write prompts shown to the agent over the course of a single trajectory, and control the input/output interface that sits between the agent and environment.

The prompt templates are explained in detail in Section C. The environment variables and command files work in tandem; environment variables make the interfaces stateful, and when commands are invoked, the corresponding states are updated to reflect the changes to the environment and interface. The parse_command, parse_function, and history_processor all reference implementations declared within the agent module. The parse_command file describes how command documentation should be presented to the agent. The parse_function is what enforces the input/output formats for the agent. The history_processor points to the logic for controlling and modifying the message history enforced at each turn throughout a single task episode.

The configuration-based workflow of SWE-agent makes it easy to test new ACIs by incorporating novel commands, input/output formats, context managers, and more into the existing codebase. In the following subsections, we showcase existing implementations of several of these components and discuss how they can be extended.

Commands. We describe how to implement your own commands for the SWE-agent ACI. As shown in the above Figure 12, commands are declared as a list of one or more file paths in the command_files argument. Individual commands must be declared as separate functions in .py or .sh files. Every command subscribes to the following skeleton code in Figure 13.

Figure 13 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 13: The skeleton code for defining a command that can be accessed in the SWE-agent ACI. The function definition includes both the underlying implementation along with several arguments that describe how to use the command, which is compiled into the System template’s command documentation at run time.

The choice of Python or Bash based implementations of commands means they can be written to do a wide variety of actions, and the use of Docker means that the commands and system can be co-designed. Here is a list of guidelines around how to implement commands correctly.

•
Command arguments can be referenced via positional parameters notation (i.e. $1).
•
If there are no arguments, omit the arguments section.
•
The implementation for your command is unconstrained. There are no limitations on the form of the underlying command code.
•
The minimal documentation requirements are signature and docstring.
•
Global variables can be used to make stateful changes to the environment. For instance, for the commands associated with the File Viewer, you’ll see we define the CURRENT_LINE variable for the file viewer. This variable is modified across multiple commands, including open, goto, scroll_up, scroll_down, and edit.
•
Third party libraries can be freely imported and used by commands (e.g., flake8).
•
To show effects of a command, print to standard output (e.g., with echo). The command parsing logic is implemented such that it does not look for a return value.

Once the file path containing the command is added to command_docs as an argument, the command is immediately available for use in subsequent task episodes. Including a demonstration that uses more complicated commands can be helpful to showcase proper use and may increase the frequency with which the agent uses the command.

Input/output format. The input/output format defines what a correctly formatted response for an agent should look like. Selecting a suitable format greatly affects how well agents can interact with the environment. The methods for communicating and enforcing the input/output format are separated across several arguments. In Figure 12, the value of parse_function should point to a class definition that enforces the format and actually parses the agent’s responses. Informing the agent of the expectations around the input/output format should take place in system_template, and the agent can be reminded of these standards via the format_error_template. New input/output formats can be easily devised and enforced by updating these arguments to point to a new class or display different natural language instructions.

Context management. Context management is implemented as a class within the agent module. The history_processor argument allows one to specify which context manager to use via the configuration file. Underneath the hood, the context manager is invoked per turn of the interactive loop. From the entire recorded history of the agent’s interactions so far, the context manager constructs the literal history to be fed to the agent to invoke the next response. The general design of history_processors allows for easy experimentation towards more sophisticated strategies for managing history.

In this section, we provide additional results, including performance marginalized against different dimensions, patch generation statistics, and problem solving patterns reflected by SWE-agent trajectories. Per analysis, we provide numerical or qualitative evidence that supports our findings, describe our takeaways from each finding, and discuss both the strengths of SWE-agent relative to prior baselines along with future directions based on improving common failure modes.

We performed a hyperparameter sweep using a subset of 37 instances sampled randomly from the dev split of SWE-bench. We present the results in Table 5, where we perform the sweeps for both the GPT-4 Turbo and Claude 3 Opus models. For GPT-4 Turbo the best configuration has a % Resolved rate of $15.1$ %, with a temperature of $0.0$ , window length of $100$ and history set to last five observations (described in §3). There is a three way tie for Claude 3 Opus between the aforementioned configuration along with two additional settings (Temperature/Window/History of $0.2$ / $100$ /Last-5 and $0.2$ / $200$ /Full). We elect to run inference of both models on the SWE-bench test sets (both full and Lite splits) using the $0.0$ / $100$ /Last-5 configuration.

Original Table 5 — Table 5: Hyper parameter sweep results on a subset of the SWE-bench dev split. % Resolved shows the mean score across 5 samples.

Table 5
Model	Temperature	Window	History	% Resolved
GPT-4 Turbo	0.0	100	Full	14.1
GPT-4 Turbo	0.0	100	Last 5 Obs.	15.1
GPT-4 Turbo	0.0	200	Full	9.2
GPT-4 Turbo	0.0	200	Last 5 Obs.	10.8
GPT-4 Turbo	0.2	100	Full	10.8
GPT-4 Turbo	0.2	100	Last 5 Obs.	12.4
GPT-4 Turbo	0.2	200	Full	8.7
GPT-4 Turbo	0.2	200	Last 5 Obs.	10.8
Claude 3 Opus	0.0	100	Full	5.4
Claude 3 Opus	0.0	100	Last 5 Obs.	8.1
Claude 3 Opus	0.0	200	Full	7.0
Claude 3 Opus	0.0	200	Last 5 Obs.	7.1
Claude 3 Opus	0.2	100	Full	7.4
Claude 3 Opus	0.2	100	Last 5 Obs.	8.1
Claude 3 Opus	0.2	200	Full	8.1
Claude 3 Opus	0.2	200	Last 5 Obs.	6.8

We present analyses of model performance marginalized across different dimensions and categories.

Original Table 6 — Table 6: % Resolved performance across repositories represented in the SWE-bench Lite dataset. Each row corresponds to a repository while each column is the model’s performance for that repository. The numbers in parentheses in the “Repo" column is the number of task instances in SWE-bench Lite that are from the corresponding repository.

Table 6
	SWE-agent	RAG
Repo	GPT 4	Claude 3 Opus	GPT 4	Claude 3 Opus	Claude 2
astropy/astropy (6)	16.67%	33.33%	00.00%	00.00%	0.00%
django/django (114)	26.32%	16.67%	04.39%	06.14%	5.26%
matplotlib/matplotlib (23)	13.04%	13.04%	00.00%	00.00%	0.00%
mwaskom/seaborn (4)	25.00%	00.00%	25.00%	25.00%	0.00%
pallets/flask (3)	00.00%	00.00%	00.00%	00.00%	0.00%
psf/requests (6)	33.33%	16.67%	00.00%	00.00%	0.00%
pydata/xarray (5)	00.00%	00.00%	20.00%	20.00%	0.00%
pylint-dev/pylint (6)	16.67%	00.00%	00.00%	00.00%	0.00%
pytest-dev/pytest (17)	17.65%	05.88%	00.00%	05.88%	5.88%
scikit-learn/scikit-learn (23)	17.39%	17.39%	00.00%	04.35%	8.70%
sphinx-doc/sphinx (16)	06.25%	06.25%	00.00%	00.00%	0.00%
sympy/sympy (77)	10.39%	05.19%	01.30%	02.60%	0.00%

We include a breakdown of model performance by repository on the SWE-bench Lite dataset in Table 6. We also include and adjust the performance of Claude 2 on SWE-bench, inherited from the baseline performances established in the original work. As presented above, SWE-agent performance is superior to prior approaches, solving not only a higher percentage of problems across repositories, but also resolving problems in repositories that were previously nearly or completely unsolved by prior retrieval augmented generation baselines used in the original SWE-bench work (e.g. matplotlib†, sympy/sympy†).

Original Table 7 — Table 7: % Resolved performance for task instances from different years represented in the SWE-bench Lite dataset. Each row corresponds to a year while each column is the model’s performance for task instances with a created_at timestamp from that year. The numbers in parentheses in the Year column is the number of task instances in SWE-bench Lite from that corresponding year.

Table 7
	SWE-agent	RAG
Year	GPT 4	Claude 3 Opus	GPT 4	Claude 3 Opus	Claude 2
2023 (30)	23.33%	13.33%	3.33%	3.33%	0.0%
2022 (57)	21.05%	17.54%	5.26%	7.02%	1.75%
2021 (42)	23.81%	11.90%	2.38%	4.76%	2.38%
2020 (66)	10.61%	07.58%	3.03%	1.52%	1.52%
Before 2020 (105)	17.14%	10.48%	0.95%	4.76%	5.71%

In Table 7, we provide a temporal breakdown that shows the % Resolved statistics for task instances from different years. There is no clear correlation between a task instance’s creation year and its resolution rate across either models or setting. For instance, while the SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 approach solves the highest percentage of problems from 2021, while the RAG w/ GPT-4 and SWE-agent w/ Claude 3 Opus approaches perform better on task instances from 2022.

We present additional characterizations of trajectories corresponding to task instances that were successfully resolved by SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo (unless otherwise specified).

Figure 14: Distribution of the number of turns for interactive trajectories corresponding to solved task instances on SWE-bench. The left histogram shows this distribution for SWE-agent w/ GPT 4 on the full SWE-bench test set (286 trajectories). The right histogram is the performance of SWE-agent w/ Claude 3 Opus on the Lite split of the SWE-bench test set (35 trajectories).

Figure 15: The distribution of agent trajectories by total steps (left) and cost (right) for SWE-agent with GPT-4 Turbo on SWE-bench. The distributions of resolved instances are shown in orange and unresolved are shown in blue. Resolved instances clearly display an earlier mean and fewer proportion of trajectories with many steps or that cost near the maximum budget of $ $4.00$ .

Figure 14 visualizes the distribution of the number of turns SWE-agent needed to complete task instances that were successfully resolved. On the full SWE-bench test set, SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 takes an average of 14.71 turns to finish a trajectory, with a median of 12 turns and 75% of trajectories being completed within 18 turns. On the Lite split of the SWE-bench test set, SWE-agent w/ Claude 3 Opus takes an average of 12.71 turns to finish a trajectory, with a median of 13 turns and 75% of trajectories being completed within 15 turns. From the distribution, it is evident that across models and SWE-bench splits, the majority of task instances are typically solved and completed comfortably within the allotted budget.

This also points to a general area of improvement for language agent systems — if a language agent’s initial problem solving approach, typically reflected in the first 10 to 20 turns, does not yield a good solution, it struggles to make use of later turns that build upon past mistakes. To remedy this issue and induce stronger error recovery capabilities in language agents, future directions could consider improving either the model, the ACI, or both.

Original Table 8 — Table 8: We present a table of the most frequently occurring action patterns at each turn (“frequently" means $\geq$ 4 times) in trajectories of task instances resolved by SWE-agent w/ GPT-4. For instance, the pattern create,edit,python appears 156 times at the first to third turns. In addition, we also manually assign each entry a category (Reproduction, Localization (File), Localization (Line), Editing, Submission) that generally captures the underlying purpose of such a pattern. “Reproduction" refers to the sub-task of recreating the error or request described by the issue. “Localization" refers to the sub-task of identifying the code that is the cause of the issue.

Table 8
Turns	Pattern	Count	Category
1-3	create, edit, python	156	Reproduction
1-3	search_dir, open, search_file	21	Localization (File)
1-3	search_dir, open, scroll_down	12	Localization (Line)
1-3	create, edit, edit	11	Reproduction
1-3	search_dir, open, edit	10	Localization (Line)
2-4	edit, python, find_file	71	Localization (File)
2-4	edit, python, edit	37	Reproduction
2-4	edit, python, search_dir	26	Localization (File)
2-4	edit, python, open	15	Localization (File)
2-4	open, edit, edit	13	Editing
2-4	open, edit, create	13	Editing
2-4	open, scroll_down, scroll_down	9	Localization (Line)
2-4	open, scroll_down, edit	5	Editing
2-4	open, edit, submit	5	Submission
3-5	python, find_file, open	61	Localization (File)
3-5	python, edit, python	25	Editing
3-5	search_file, goto, edit	24	Localization (Line)
3-5	python, search_dir, open	23	Localization (File)
3-5	edit, create, edit	13	Editing
3-5	python, edit, edit	11	Editing
3-5	python, open, edit	7	Editing
3-5	python, find_file, find_file	7	Localization (File)
3-5	edit, edit, submit	4	Submission
3-5	edit, edit, create	4	Editing
4-6	find_file, open, edit	28	Editing
4-6	find_file, open, search_file	19	Localization (Line)
4-6	edit, edit, python	11	Reproduction
4-6	goto, edit, edit	8	Editing
4-6	find_file, open, goto	8	Localization (Line)
4-6	goto, edit, submit	7	Submission
4-6	goto, edit, create	7	Editing
4-6	find_file, open, scroll_down	6	Localization (Line)
4-6	scroll_down, scroll_down, edit	5	Localization (Line)
4-6	find_file, find_file, open	5	Localization (File)
5-7	open, search_file, goto	29	Localization (Line)
5-7	open, edit, python	20	Editing
5-7	open, goto, edit	7	Editing
5-7	scroll_down, edit, submit	4	Submission
6-8	scroll_down (x3)	6	Localization (Line)
6-8	search_file, goto, scroll_down	4	Localization (Line)
7-9	edit, python, rm	20	Editing
7-9	goto, edit, python	12	Editing
8-10	python, rm, submit	19	Submission
8-10	search_file, goto, search_file	4	Localization (File)
9-11	edit (x3)	18	Editing
9-11	edit, open, edit	6	Editing
9-11	goto, search_file, goto	4	Localization (Line)

We describe what happens in different phases of an agent’s problem solving trajectory. To support our observations, we present several tables and distributions that help highlight consistent trends.

Figure 16: We assign each pattern to one of five categories (as presented in Table 8) and present a histogram of the turns at which patterns from specific categories show up frequently.

Initial reproduction, localization steps. First, the initial steps that SWE-agent usually takes is heavily dominated by Localization and Reproduction operations. The most commonly occurring pattern in general is the create, edit, python triplet. Across these commands, an agent creates an empty python file, adds an executable code snippet via edit, and then attempts to run it. As an alternative, the agent also sometimes decides to start off instead with Localization, or identifying the files/lines causing the issue. Depending on how informative the issue description and results for initial search queries are, agents will run additional search queries with finer grained search tools to zoom in on the target problematic code area (e.g., search_dir, open, search_file/scroll_down).

These trends are also reflected in Figure 16, which shows a distribution of patterns across turns according to the categories defined in Table 8. The three leftmost bars reflect that Reproduction followed by Localization constitutes the lion’s share of operations that occur in the early phases of a trajectory. For a more thorough breakdown, we also include Figure 17, which shows an estimated distribution of each action with respect to different turns, normalized across the total number of times the command occurs across all turns. From these graphs, we can see that create is invoked much more frequently in the very first turn than in any other turn. The search_dir and search_file distributions are roughly bi-modal, with a peak of occurrences for both actions showing up in Turn 1 (if the agent decides to do Localization immediately) and the Turn 4 (if the agent decides to do Localization after Reproduction). We also present Figure 18, which communicates similar information as Figure 17, but presented instead as a stacked bar chart with more commands. The chart is created directly from Figure 8, with the frequency of actions at each turn n normalized across the total number of trajectories with a length greater than or equal to n turns.

Figure 17: This density plot shows a normalized distribution of actions across different turns of a trajectory. exit_cost refers to when the token budget cost was exhausted and the episode’s changes are automatically submitted (contrary to an intentional submit invoked by the agent).

Cycle of edit, then evaluate. From the fifth turn onwards, the distribution of actions per turn can be generally described as alternating edit and python/pytest actions. After reproducing the issue and localizing the file(s) responsible for the problem, agents will typically make edits to the file, then run the reproduction script or existing tests to check whether the proposed edits resolve the original issue and maintain existing desirable behavior. This pair of actions will often repeat for several turns, as an initial edit usually does not successfully resolve the given issue. Multiple rounds of editing that are supplemented by execution feedback from prior turns are conducive to more well-formed, successful subsequent edits. As reflected in Table 8, for turn 4 onwards, the most popular pattern that begins at each turn usually falls under the Editing category. This is also made obvious by Figure 18, where the edit command is the most popular command for Turns $5$ to $31$ , with only one exception (Turn $30$ ). From Figure 17, it is also notably that the distributions of the edit and python commands are quite similar, as they typically follow one another.

Figure 18: A normalized view of Figure 8. The distributions for turn n are normalized across the number of trajectories that have a length of at least n or more turns.

Interspersed across these later turns are additional Localization operations for inspecting other parts of the current file (e.g., scroll_down, scroll_up) or opening other files (e.g., open, search_dir/file, find_file). These minor trend lines reflect the tasks that involve multi-line or multi-file edits. Figure 18 displays a steady presence of such actions from Turn $6$ onwards. Agents will invoke such actions to read different parts (e.g., documentation, implementation) of a long function, especially when it does not fit entirely within the file viewer’s number of lines. After editing one function A, running the reproduction script will occasionally propagate an error in a different function B, where function B invokes A. This is a common reason for the additional directory and file level navigation that occurs in the later stages of a trajectory.

Concluding submission turns. There is a consistent proportion of submit actions per turn, with a relative peak around Turn $10$ , as shown in Figure 17. As mentioned in Section 5.2 and above, the majority of resolved task instances end with an intentional submit command. As suggested by both Figure 15 and Figure 18, submissions are concentrated between Turns $10$ and $20$ , becoming less frequent for each turn beyond this range. This trend reflects how agents struggle to use later turns to their advantage, particularly when the original problem solving approach fails, which is fairly evident by Turn $20$ . Effectively utilizing later turns to either remedy multiple prior errors or pivot to a different problem solving approach are all viable strategies given the $20$ + turns that remain. However, due to overwhelming context or greedy tendencies, agents do not reflect such dynamic behavior, instead opting to focus on continued local editing rather than additional exploration.

Finally, there is a sharp cut off of exit_cost actions scattered throughout Turns $30$ to $40$ ; this reflects that the $ $4$ cost limit we impose on runs roughly corresponds to this number of turns. The discrepancies mainly comes from variations in the size of observations, with trajectories containing multiple observations that have a high number of tokens corresponding to ones that terminate relatively earlier. Increasing the cost allowance per task episode would directly increase the maximum number of the turns per episode.

In this part, we include more granular examinations of patterns of actions that emerge frequently in trajectories. We also identify consistent associations between groups of actions and how their effects build off one another across several turns.

Editing Trends. Editing is a core facet of agents’ ability to reproduce issues and propose fixes effectively. It is also the action that models typically struggle with the most. Here, we list several trends we were able to discern about how agents edit.

First, across the full SWE-bench test set, a non-trivial minority of edit actions are unsuccessful, meaning the edit invocation raises a linting error. Going forwards, we refer to such an occurrence as a failed edit. Out of $2true294$ task instances, $1true185$ ( $51.7$ %) have at least one turn with an failed edit. Of these trajectories, there is a median of $3$ failed edits per trajectory, with a max of $33$ . The rate of failed edits is smaller for resolved task instances. Out of $286$ resolved instances, $113$ ( $31.5$ %) have at least one turn with an failed edit, with a median/mean/max of $2$ failed edits per trajectory, with a max of $26$ . Figure 19 shows corresponding distributions.

Figure 19: Distribution of the number of failed edit actions per trajectory across all (left) and resolved (right) task instances by SWE-agent with GPT-4 Turbo. A “failed" edit refers to an edit action that raised a linting error. The left-most bar for both graphs corresponds to the number of trajectories with no failed edits.

Second, with linting enabled editing, agents “recover" more often than not from failed edits. To understand whether and how effectively agents use linting error feedback to construct a subsequent, well-formed edit action, we define two terms. Recovery refers to a sequence of failed edits followed immediately by a successful edit, suggesting the agent used linting feedback to make a well-formatted edit. An unsuccessful recovery is consecutive failed edits followed immediately by a non-edit action.

Figure 20: Probability of successful edit after n failed edits. The likelihood of recovery decreases as n increases.

Across trajectories corresponding to resolved task instances, there are $135$ occurrences of $1$ + failed edit attempts. Out of these, the agent recovers successfully $104$ times. The number of consecutive failed edit attempts before a successful versus failed recovery is also vastly different. Successful recoveries are usually preceded by $2.03$ edit attempts, less than the average $4.22$ failed edit attempts of unsuccessful recoveries. Across all task instances, the relative rate of unsuccessful recoveries increases, with $810$ successful recoveries versus $555$ unsuccessful ones. While the number of consecutive failed edit attempts resulting in a recovery remains steady ( $2.2$ ), it increases significantly for unsuccessful recoveries ( $5.59$ ).

Third, the odds of recovery decreases as the agent accumulates more failed edit attempts. Figure 20 displays a line plot of the probability of a successful edit given n failed edit attempts in a row. The leftmost data point of n $=$ $0$ means that any attempt at editing has a $90.5$ % chance of eventually being successful. This value drops off once the agent incurs a single failed edit; there is only a $57.2$ % chance the edit is ultimately successful. In other words, there is a $42.8$ % chance the agent never recovers upon encountering $1$ edit error.

Action sequence analysis. We calculate the transition probabilities showing the likelihood of the next action given the previous n actions. To perform this analysis, we first determine the $15$ most commonly occurring sequences of n actions, for n $\in\{1,2,3,4\}$ . We then count how frequently each command appears after this sequence and finally normalize the counts across the total number of occurrences of the sequence to get a likelihood of the “Next Action" with respect to the preceding n sequence of actions.

We show these transition probability heatmaps, with n $=1$ in Figure 22, n $=2$ in Figure 22, n $=3$ in Figure 24, and n $=4$ in Figure 24. From these graphs, it is immediately obvious that several action sequences emerge consistently across many task instances. The high likelihood cells in these heatmaps suggest that SWE-agent uses common problem solving patterns which correspond to higher order operations such as reproducing an issue, localizing buggy code, and proposing/verifying edits.

In Figure 22, we see direct associations between pairs of actions. There are several obvious trends. All trajectories begin with create, find_file, search_dir, and end on either a submit or exit_cost. The most popular next action is edit; it is the most likely action to follow create, edit, goto, pytest, and python. Scroll (e.g., scroll_down/up) and search (e.g. find_file, search_dir) actions tend to be repeated.

Figure 21: Heatmap displaying the relative frequency of different actions being invoked after the most popular actions in SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo trajectories across all task instances.

Figure 23: Heatmap displaying the relative frequency of different actions being invoked after the most popular triplets of actions in SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo trajectories across all task instances.

Other interesting correlations are also present. The edit/evaluate pattern is reflected in the correlation between the edit and python pair. A variety of localization patterns are also conspicuous. Sometimes, searching for a file turns out to be less fruitful than searching for a keyword, and visa versa. This is reflected in the find_file and search_dir pair. The invocation of open is representative of an agent honing in on a specific file to then continue localizing (search_file $0.35$ , scroll_down $0.18$ , goto $0.09$ ) or begin editing (edit $0.25$ ).

As the number of prior actions considered increases, more complex operations carried across multiple commands become apparent, echoing the observations from Table 8. In Figure 24, reproduction (e.g. [create, edit, python]) is typically followed by adjustments to the script (edit $0.39$ ) or localization (find_file $0.31$ , search_dir $0.22$ ). Fruitful localization patterns are once again reflected by [find_file / search_dir, open, search_file] are followed by goto. In Figure 24, the most popular $4$ -grams are related to reproduction or editing. The [edit, python, rm, submit] pattern is a popular way for trajectories to finish. Common failure modes are also apparent; repeated actions like edit ( $4$ x) and scroll_down ( $4$ x) typically continues cascading.

In this section, we provide insight on categorizing common agent failure modes. We perform an automated analysis of the unresolved trajectories ( $n=248$ ) from the SWE-bench Lite split with our default configuration. We first create a list of possible failure categories based on model behavior analyzed in Sections B.3.2, which are described in full detail in Table 9. A validation set of $15$ instances are then sampled from the $248$ instances left marked unresolved by SWE-agent and the authors hand-label them according to these categories. Finally, we combine the agent’s trajectory with the patch generated by its changes and the gold patch for reference and use an LM† to categorize each trajectory. In Figure 8, we show the results of this automated categorization. Evaluated on our validation set, the LM generated labels agree with the authors’ labels on $87$ % of instances.

We find that about half ( $52.0$ %) of the unresolved instances fall into the Incorrect Implementation or Overly Specific Implementation categories, suggesting that agents’ proposed solutions often simply fail to functionally address the issue or are insufficiently general solutions. Another significant category is the Failed Edit Recovery category, making up $23.4$ % of instances, which happens when models fail to generate well-formed edits to files, which can seriously inhibit their performance. The remaining failure modes make up less than $25$ % of instances, but highlight different aspects of the challenges faced by the agent in the problem-solving process.

Original Table 9 — Table 9: Descriptions of failure mode categories.

Table 9
Category	Description
Failed to Reproduce	The agent tried but was not able to successfully reproduce the problem in the issue.
Failed to Find Relevant File	The agent never opened or saw the correct file.
Failed to Find Edit Location	The agent opened and viewed the correct file but didn’t find or edit a relevant location.
Overly Specific Implementation	The agent made a relevant change but its solution was not sufficiently general; in this case it might solve the very specific issue suggested but it does so in a way that might change the behavior of the code in other, more general, cases.
Incorrect Implementation	The agent made a change to a reasonable area but their solution didn’t correctly address the issue.
Ran Out of Budget	The agent seemed to be on the right track to a solution, but the episode ended before they could complete their changes.
Failed Edit Recovery	The agent went into an edit loop, making recurrent failing edits without recovering.
Gave Up Prematurely	The agent decides to stop solving the problem after encountering some difficulty.
Other	There was some other problem that prevented the agent from resolving this issue.

Since running SWE-agent on SWE-bench can be rather expensive, we perform, all results, unless otherwise stated, are reported using a pass@ $1$ metric (% Resolved). However, we also test our main SWE-agent configuration for a higher number of runs to test the variance and pass $@k$ performance for $k\in\{3,6\}$ . These results are shown in Table 10, suggesting that average performance variance is relatively low, though per-instance resolution can change considerably.

Original Table 10 — Table 10: Performance for 6 separate runs of SWE-agent with GPT-4 on SWE-bench Lite. The % Resolved rate for each individual run is shown in the first table, and the pass $@$ k rate in the second.

Table 10
	SWE-bench Lite
	Run 1	Run 2	Run 3	Run 4	Run 5	Run 6	Avg.
Resolve %	17.33	18.00	18.00	18.67	17.33	18.33	17.94 $_{0.49}$

Table 10
	Pass@1	Pass@2	Pass@3	Pass@4	Pass@5	Pass@6
Pass $@$ k	17.94	23.89	27.35	29.67	31.33	32.67

In this section, we present some statistics and analysis around the edits generated by SWE-agent. At the end of a task episode, the edits made by SWE-agent are aggregated and saved as a single .patch file, the canonical representation for code changes of a pull request on GitHub. From these patch representations, we can quantitatively characterize an agent’s generations and see how they compare to the original solutions written by human codebase maintainers.

Table 11 presents a summary of four basic statistics about the model generations. Lines added and lines removed refer to the total number of lines that were added or deleted in the patch, an indicator of the size of the modification. The number of hunks and files is more indicative of how many “regions" of the codebase were modified. A higher number of hunks and files suggests that there are more distinct, separate places in the codebase where the patch made changes. For both “Resolved" and “All" categories of task instances, models tend to generate “larger" edits (e.g., more lines added, hunks, and files) than the corresponding gold solution. Prior RAG baselines in Jimenez et al. 20 typically produce smaller edits on average. The source of this increase for agent-generated solutions can largely be attributed to additional reproduction code.

Original Table 11 — Table 11: We show the (median) / (mean) value for several statistics characterizing patch generations. We calculate these statistics across two dimensions. First, the “Resolved" / “All" labels denote whether the patch resolved the issue. Second, for the task instances specific to each model, we calculate the same statistics across the gold patches. To diminish the effect of outliers, we calculate these statistics based on values falling within within the $90$ th percentile of the distribution.

Table 11
Model	Outcome	Lines +	Lines -	Hunks	Files
SWE-agent	Resolved	3.0 / 5.7	1.0 / 1.32	1.0 / 1.52	1.0 / 1.22
w/ GPT-4 Turbo	Any	12.0 / 16.58	1.0 / 1.35	2.0 / 1.83	1.0 / 1.53
Gold	Resolved	2.0 / 3.58	1.0 / 1.98	1.0 / 1.3	1.0 / 1.0
	Any	7.0 / 11.67	2.0 / 4.05	2.0 / 2.45	1.0 / 1.24
SWE-agent	Resolved	3.0 / 5.09	1.0 / 1.59	1.0 / 1.56	1.0 / 1.26
w/ Claude 3 Opus	Any	11.0 / 15.25	1.0 / 1.79	2.0 / 2.14	2.0 / 1.87
Gold	Resolved	3.0 / 3.91	1.0 / 1.94	1.0 / 1.4	1.0 / 1.0
	Any	6.0 / 10.68	2.0 / 3.61	2.0 / 2.22	1.0 / 1.13

When comparing the “Resolved" and “All" categories, we see that successfully resolved edits are relatively smaller than the original distribution. This trend is consistent with the RAG based solutions; issues that require multiple edits across a codebase remains challenging for agents.

In this section, we include further discussion about our evaluation of SWE-agent on HumanEvalFix. We choose to evaluate on the HumanEvalFix task because it focuses on code editing and debugging, which was empirically demonstrated in Muennighoff et al. 32 to be a more difficult task for LMs (as reported in their work, GPT 4 scores $78.3$ % on HumanEval, compared to $47.8$ % on HumanEvalFix). The code editing task can also be thought of as a “subtask" in SWE-bench; being able to identify and fix bugs is a major part of software engineering.

We adopt the HumanEvalFix dataset ( $164$ problems per language) to be compatible with the SWE-agent setting. Following the documentation in Muennighoff et al. 32, SWE-agent is initialized in a directory with a single file containing a buggy code snippet and example test(s) if available. It is then asked to edit the code and verify its fixes. The configuration file is identical to the one used for SWE-bench, with the exception of a language-specific demonstration. For this task, localization and navigating a large codebase are not necessary; the main focus is on generating the correct edit. SWE-agent achieves the best performance on the HumanEvalFix benchmark for three of the languages we evaluate on, as shown in Table 3. Figure 25 also suggests that the large majority of task instances are solved within the first $10$ turns.

Figure 25: Similar to Figure 14, we show the distribution of the number of turns for trajectories corersponding to solved task instances from the HumanEvalFix dataset.

In the following Table 12, we provide descriptions of the two datasets that we use for evaluation: SWE-bench [20] and HumanEvalFix [32]. Both datasets have been released under permissive software licenses that allow for evaluation use, and can be used in proprietary systems.

Original Table 12 — Table 12: Information about each of the datasets that we evaluate SWE-agent on.

Table 12
Dataset	Released	License	Splits	Count	Languages	GitHub Repo
SWE-bench	10/10/2023	MIT	Test	2294	Python	princeton-nlp/
			Lite	300		SWE-bench
			Dev	225
HumanEvalFix	07/23/2023	MIT	Test	164	Python, JS, Go	bigcode-project/
					Java, C++, Rust	octopack

In this section, we include additional minor analyses around agent behavior and their generations.

Agents are better at localizing files than BM25. The interactive setting also enables agents to identify the correct file(s) to edit more often compared to the RAG baselines in Jimenez et al. 20. To measure this, we calculate the F1 score between the set of [edited, removed] files by the agent’s prediction versus the gold patch. SWE-agent w/ GPT-4 Turbo achieves an F1 score of $59.05$ %, while BM25 w/ Claude 3 Opus produces an F1 score of just $45.47$ %.

Most resolved task instances are intentionally submitted. There are four ways a task episode ends.

•
“Submit" refers to a task episode that ends when the agent generates the submit command.
•
“Exit Cost (Submit)" refers to the scenario where the episode ends because the cost limit was hit, and the changes so far are gathered and submitted as an edit.
•
“Exit Cost (No Submit)" refers to when the cost limit was hit and no edit’s were made, so there was nothing to submit. In this scenario, the instance is guaranteed to be unresolved.
•
“Early Exit" refers to when the task episode terminates because an agent issued too many malformed responses in a row. Any changes are submitted as an edit.

Table 13 shows the counts for the number of trajectories that ended on these four different outcomes, categorized across the agent, SWE-bench split, and whether or not that task instance was resolved. For SWE-agent with GPT-4 Turbo, the majority of “All" task instances are submit. For the trajectories corresponding to“All" task instances by SWE-agent with Claude 3 Opus, slightly less than $50$ % of task instances are submitted, while the slight majority are auto-submitted when the cost limit is hit.

Original Table 13 — Table 13: This table showcases the counts for the four ways (“Submit", “Exit Cost (Submit)", “Exit Cost (No Submit)", “Early Exit") a task episode could conclude.

Table 13
			Submit	Exit Cost	Exit Cost	Early Exit
Model	Split	Outcome		(Submit)	(No Submit)
SWE-agent	Full	Resolved	266	20	0	0
w/ GPT-4 Turbo		All	1589	630	48	1
	Lite	Resolved	50	4	0	0
		All	203	95	2	0
SWE-agent	Full	Resolved	206	35	0	0
w/ Claude 3 Opus		All	882	1048	73	1
	Lite	Resolved	32	3	0	0
		All	133	156	11	0

However, these trends do not hold for “Resolved" task instances. For SWE-agent with both models, the large majority of these task instances are submit. Reiterating the conclusion in Section 5.2 and prior visualizations in Section B.3, we see here again that resolved task instances often imply that the agent is able to produce and verify an edit within the allotted number of turns. The SWE-agent ACI is also effective at eliciting well-formed thoughts and actions from agents. Across all runs, there are only two “Early Exit" occurrences, where the episode terminated because the agent generated too many malformed responses in a row.

Finally, Table 13 also upholds an expected trend. Task instances that finish with a submit action are more likely to be resolved than those that are cutoff by cost. For instance, for SWE-agent with GPT-4 Turbo on full SWE-bench, $14.3$ % of task instances that end with a submit are resolved, which is much higher than $3.1$ % for those finishing on exit_cost.

In this section, we go through the prompt templates that make up the agent’s history, discussing them in the order of presentation to SWE-agent. Per template, we describe its purpose, walk through its content, and note any additional motivations that influenced how we wrote the template. The companion figures of template content are all drawn from our default configuration, using SWE-agent w/ GPT-4.

The template content can and should be adapted slightly to fit the agent’s intended use case. The purpose of this section is to describe our thought process for how we designed each template for these tasks to serve as reference for future work. Across templates, we find that providing tips which tell agents to not make specific mistakes, avoid common pitfalls, and use helpful execution signals are effective for eliciting more successful problem solving.

Prompt Workflow. We present Figure 26 which shows the order in which different prompt templates are invoked. This flow of prompts reflects the logic that generates trajectories similar to the one that is visualized in Figure 9.

Figure 26: The flow of prompt templates throughout a single SWE-agent task instance episode. The system, demonstration, and issue templates are shown all together at the beginning of the task episode, followed by turn-specific prompts that are shown depending on whether the agent response is well-formatted and whether the action has standard output.

System Template. The system template describes the interactive task setting, the commands at the agent’s disposal, and the expected response format. It is the first message for any episode, does not change in content across task instances, and is not removed or collapsed at any point from the message history. The agent is told of the general task setting, which is a command line that comes with a special file viewer interface. After this, the agent is presented the command documentation, which shows a usage example and docstring for every custom command, mirroring the content of Figure 27. As discussed before, from manual observation, we find that agents need a lot of support to make effective use of the edit command.

Figure 27 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 27: The system prompt for SWE-agent describes the environment. The documentation field is populated with brief description of all enabled commands, similar to Table 4.

An agent will occasionally generate an edit with either the wrong level of indentation or incorrectly specified line numbers. Because of this, we include a note telling the agent to pay attention to proper indentation. Finally, the system prompt describes what the agent’s response should look like, communicated with an example (e.g. JSON format, XML delimiters) followed by a paragraph reinforcing the importance of issuing a single thought/action pair per turn. Because of the constraints imposed by Docker containers, we include one last point about the command line environment not supporting any interactive session commands, such as vi or python. The system template does not introduce any task instance specific information.

Demonstration Template. If provided, the demonstration template immediately follows the system template as the second message showing the agent a trajectory which resulted in the successful resolution of a task instance from the development set. As confirmed by the ablation in Table 3, including a demonstration slightly helps agents with understanding proper command usage and reduces the rate of errant responses. Rather than being written out entirely like the system template, the demonstration template is put together based on two fields as shown in the configuration file discussed in Section A.3. First, the demonstrations argument points at 1+ .traj file(s), each containing a multi-turn, SWE-agent style history of interactions.

Second, the demonstration_template and put_demos_in_history arguments control how the demonstration is represented in the message history. If the put_demos_in_history argument is set True, every turn of the demonstration trajectory is used as a separate message in the history. The alternative is to write out the entire demonstration as a single message, wrapped in a natural language instruction indicating it is a demonstration (this is the method that is displayed in Figure 28). The effectiveness of each method varies by model. The first method of adding a demonstration as separate messages can be preferable because it gives an agent the impression that it has already solved a task instance and is working on the next one. However, for a different model, it can be confusing to have the contexts from two tasks in a single trajectory, which is why the second method of explicitly telling the model that it’s being given a demonstration can be better.

Figure 28 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 28: A simplified demonstration template showing how demonstrations are provided to the model as a single message. Here we show only the final

3

turns in the demonstration for brevity.

We are unsure if demonstrations actually help agents understand the nuances of domain specific problem solving. Because of the diversity of software engineering issues, we think the role the demonstration plays is primarily to help the agent learn to issue properly formatted commands. Prior work has demonstrated that fine tuning may have the potential to imbue agents with a certain degree of expertise around how to adaptively solve task instances that may vary in terms of what strategy is most successful.

Instance Template. The instance template introduces the agent to the task instance. The problem statement is shown, followed by a brief set of instructions that reiterate important points from the system template. These points are the one thought/action per-turn requirement, mentioning the lack of support for interactive shell commands, and a reminder of the importance of editing indentation. Finally, a notably effective part of the instance template is the inclusion of tips which serve as an additional guidelines for how to operate successfully in the bash environment, shown in Figure 29. These tips were developed manually and iteratively; after running SWE-agent with a particular configuration on the development set, we manually looked at the trajectories for failure modes. The tips were born out of these failures, and through repeated inspection, we found that such tips did reduce the frequency of errant problem solving strategies that they are meant to address. While our manual approach to writing tips certainly does not scale, representing feedback for common mistakes as tips is surprisingly effective. Developing better methods for this process of identifying failure modes and writing natural language instructions that describe the correct alternative behavior could be an avenue to better performance for future SWE-agent based systems. Finally, at the end of the message, the agent is presented with a command line prompt indicating that the task has begun and that the agent should issue its first command.

Figure 29 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 29: The instance template. This message shows the task instance’s problem statement (referenced by the {issue} field), shows additional task instance-specific information, and provides a set of tips suggesting recommended problem solving approaches and pitfalls to look out for.

Next Step Template. Assuming an agent’s response is well formed and contains an action, there are two simple templates used to present the corresponding output of the agent’s action, as shown in Figure 30. If an agent’s action produces some standard output, the agent is simply shown this output with a command line prompt to indicate that the agent should respond with the next action.

Figure 30 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 30: The environment’s “next step" template. This is emitted after each observation to inform the model of the current state of the shell and programs.

However, if an agent’s action runs silently and produces no output (e.g. rm abc.py, touch abc.py), we found that simple showing no output along with a prompt can be confusing for agents to interpret, and it will often run additional, unnecessary commands to determine the effect of the prior action. To guard against this situation, the agent is informed verbosely that the command ran successfully and did not produce output. While the System, Demonstration, and Instances template are only used a single time, the next step template is used repeatedly. In the SWE-agent configuration described in this work, the next step templates are fairly simple, as they essentially just add the command line prompt to the end of the execution standard output. We have not explored other variations to this style.

Collapsed Observation Template. As shown in Figure 9 and discussed in Section 2, old observations are collapsed; meaning that the structure and order of the agent’s interaction history is preserved, but the content of old observations are replaced with a one-line placeholder. This summary simply states that the observation is omitted with the number of lines that were removed, as shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 31: A collapsed environment response. The content of old observations are replaced with this template.

The purpose of collapsing old observations is twofold. First, it simply reduces the number of tokens needing to be processed at each interaction step. Second, by removing old observations’ content, it can also reduce the presence of outdated or duplicate information, such as directory and file contents or command output. We think that both of these purposes can serve to improve agent performance.

Error Message Template. An agent’s response is not always well formed. As discussed, an agent is generally expected to respond with a single thought and action per turn. In our work, we experimented with asking the agent to generate one of three different styles of responses for communicating one thought and one action (same type of response across any single episode).

1.
A string where the action is wrapped as a markdown-style code block (```).
2.
A JSON style dictionary with “thought" and “action" keys.
3.
An XML style generation with “ $<$ thought $>$ " and “ $<$ action $>$ " delimiters.

On occasion, an agent may generate a response that doesn’t conform to the requested format. If this occurs, we show an error message to the agent indicating that the prior message was malformed and to issue another response that does not make the same mistake, as presented in Figure 32. If a model generates $3$ malformed responses in a row, the episode will terminate early.

Figure 32 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 32: The environment’s error message. This is emitted if a model generation doesn’t conform to the thought-action format suggested.

Another context management trick is that if models generate a malformed response, but then subsequently respond with a valid one, the message history is modified such that the action and response correspond to the malformed generation is removed. This kind of de-noising reduces unnecessary context and helps prevent future malformed generations. Each well-formatted response becomes an additional in-context demonstration of how to interact with the environment correctly; this “momentum” of correct responses is effective for helping agents continue to issue correct actions at later turns in trajectories when there is a lot of information in the message history.

We choose $2$ successful and unsuccessful task instances from SWE-bench Lite to perform a full qualitative analysis, based on the trajectories generated by the default configuration using GPT-4 Turbo.

Issue Summary. The agent was tasked with resolving a problem in the requests library where the method variable, a bytes object (e.g., b’GET’), was being incorrectly converted to a literal string ("b’GET’") by the builtin_str function. This caused the requests library to raise a 404 Not Found response due to the incorrect method string. The issue was observed in Python 3.4 and not in Python 2.6, indicating a version-specific difference in handling bytes.

Interaction Summary

1.
Locate the Target File: The agent began by finding the sessions.py file in the requests library directory. It correctly identified that the relevant file was in the requests directory rather than the build directory.
2.
Search for the Issue: It opened sessions.py and used the search_file command to locate the builtin_str function call. It found the relevant line (line 428) where the method variable was being converted.
3.
Edit the Code: The agent edited the sessions.py file to check if the method was a bytes object and, if so, decoded it to ASCII before applying the builtin_str function.
4.
Test Changes: To verify the fix, the agent created a new file, reproduce_issue.py, which attempted to send an HTTP request using a binary method string. The script printed the response status code to check if the request was handled correctly. It ran the reproduce_issue.py script, which executed successfully and received a 200 OK response, indicating that the issue was resolved.
5.
Clean Up and Submit: Finally, the agent deleted the reproduction script and submitted the changes to the code base.

Evaluation. Upon evaluation, the agent’s proposed changes successfully pass the instance’s unit tests. When comparing the agent’s generation to the ‘gold patch‘, we notice that the gold patch uses the to_native_string function, defined in requests/utils.py#L655, which behaves identically to the agent’s proposed changes. Ultimately, while the agent successfully resolves the issue, it fails to use existing utility functions, which could lead to less maintainable or portable code in production.

Figure 33 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 33: Trajectory for instance psf__requests-2317.

Issue Summary. The issue involves the --notes option in pylint, which fails to report fixme warnings (W0511) for note tags that are entirely punctuation. Specifically, when running pylint with the --notes="YES,???" option, only the “YES” tag is recognized, and the “???” tag is ignored. The expected behavior is to recognize the punctuation-only tag normally.

Interaction Summary

1.
Reproducing the Issue:
- •
  The agent started by creating a test.py file and added comments to replicate the issue described. This was followed by running pylint to confirm the issue, which only reported the “YES” note and not the “???” note.
2.
Searching for Relevant Code:
- •
  The agent attempted to search for the handling of the --notes option using the search_dir command. After some initial confusion with the command options, it successfully identified the pylint/checkers/misc.py file as containing the relevant code.
3.
Editing the Code:
- •
  The agent located the regular expression responsible for matching note tags within the open method of the EncodingChecker class. It modified the regular expression to handle punctuation-only note tags by replacing the word boundary \b with a lookahead assertion (?\̄W|$).
4.
Test Changes with Reproduction Code:
- •
  After making the modification, the agent re-ran pylint on the test.py file. The output confirmed that both note tags (“YES” and “???”) were now correctly identified.
- •
  Clean Up and Submit:
- •
  Finally, the agent removed the test.py file and submitted the changes.

Evaluation The agent effectively replicated the issue, identified and navigated to the relevant code, made a targeted modification to the regular expression, and verified the fix through testing. While the agent’s solution successfully passes the necessary tests, there are slight differences in behavior between the agent’s solution and the gold patch. In particular, the agent replaced the \b word boundary in the regular expression to handle note tags with the regex pattern (\W|$) to mark the tag boundary. Comparing this to the gold patch solution which uses the pattern (:|\s|\Z) in the same way, it may be that the agent’s solution causes other unintended consequences that aren’t captured by the existing tests.

Figure 34 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 34: Trajectory for instance pylint-dev__pylint-5859.

Issue Summary. The issue is reporting an UnedinedKind type returned when printing a sympy.Derivative’s kind attribute. They expect something like a DerivativeKind instead of UndefinedKind.

Interaction Summary

1.
Reproduce the Issue: The agent began by creating a Python script (reproduce_issue.py) to reproduce the issue, using the reproduction code provided in the issue report. It ran the script and successfully reproduced the issue.
2.
Searching for Derivative Code: The agent begins to search for code where the Derivative class is defined. It makes several attempts with different strategies to find the relevant code. After a few unsuccessful approaches, looking for particular filenames, it searches simply for “class Derivative“, which provides a single search result. It continues to read the Derivative class definition, which spans many hundreds of lines.
3.
Exhausting Budget: It continuously scrolls through the function.py file where Derivative is defined until is exhausts its budget and terminates the episode without submitting.

Evaluation The agent makes a few mistakes using the search function effectively. The agent should have made more efficient searches by using more commonsensical patterns (e.g. searching for “class Derivative“) early on, instead of more speculative search attempts. In this particular setting, the gold patch shows that the updated code involves overriding an inherited property kind from the sympy.basic object. This fix would require a more thorough understanding of the codebase and inheritence structure of Derivative to be effective. An agent attempting to resolve this issue would need to have more targeted and efficient search approaches to improve its ability to identify this problem.

Figure 35 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 35: Trajectory for instance sympy__sympy-21614.

Issue Summary. The issue involves the ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget in the Django admin interface. The label element for this widget has a ’for’ attribute that points to a non-labelable element. Since the ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget renders text rather than an input element, the label should not have a ’for’ attribute.

Interaction Summary

1.
Locate the Relevant File: The agent began by searching for the ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget definition using the find_file command, but found no results. It then used the search_dir command to find references to the widget within the repository and located relevant matches in several files. The agent chose to first examine the helpers.py file, but found it only contained a reference to the widget and did not include the label rendering code.
2.
Explore Related Files: Next, the agent opened the forms.py file in the django/contrib/auth directory, which defined the ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget and its associated ReadOnlyPasswordHashField. It identified that the widget used a template (read_only_password_hash.html) for rendering, but the template did not include relevant information relating to the Widget’s for attribute.
3.
Edit the Class Definition: Returning to forms.py, the agent found the UserChangeForm which used the ReadOnlyPasswordHashField. It reasoned that Django’s form rendering system likely added the ’for’ attribute automatically. To address the issue, the agent attempted to write a label_tag method for the ReadOnlyPasswordHashField to exclude the ’for’ attribute. The agent made several edits to this effect, importing the necessary utilities from django.utils.html and adding a custom label_tag method.
4.
Submit Without Testing: After the desired changes were made, the agent proceeds to submit without testing as it assumes that a Django server cannot be run and tested in this environment.

Evaluation The agent correctly identified the need to customize the label rendering for the ReadOnlyPasswordHashField class. However, its solution failed to solve the issue since it did not understand how labels were defined for a Widget object. In actuality, the model needed to override the id_for_label property defined in the Widget class to change this behavior properly. Similar functionality can be seen in other parts of the codebase.

Figure 36 couldn’t be loaded.

Figure 36: Trajectory for instance django__django-14411.

This graphic couldn’t be loaded; its text is below.

SWE-agent django__django-14411

The changes to the ‘ReadOnlyPasswordHashField‘ class have been successfully applied, including the import of ‘format_html‘ and ‘format_html_join‘, and the addition of a custom ‘label_tag‘ method that returns a label without the ’for’ attribute. Before submitting the changes, it would be prudent to test that the changes have the desired effect. However, since we cannot run a Django server or render forms in this environment, we will proceed with submitting the changes. Let’s submit the changes to the code base using the ‘submit‘ command. submit

This graphic couldn’t be loaded; its text is below.

Observation django__django-14411

diff --git a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py index 20d8922799..1f249a88dd 100644 --- a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py +++ b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ class ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget(forms.Widget): return context +from django.utils.html import format_html, format_html_join + class ReadOnlyPasswordHashField(forms.Field): widget = ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget @@ -59,6 +61,12 @@ class ReadOnlyPasswordHashField(forms.Field): kwargs.setdefault(’disabled’, True) super().__init__(*args, **kwargs) + def label_tag(self, contents=None, attrs=None, label_suffix=None): + contents = contents or self.label + if label_suffix is not None and label_suffix not in contents: + contents += label_suffix + return format_html(’<label>{}</label>’, contents) + class UsernameField(forms.CharField): def to_python(self, value):

This graphic couldn’t be loaded; its text is below.

Gold Patch django__django-14411

diff --git a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py --- a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py +++ b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py @@ -50,6 +50,9 @@ def get_context(self, name, value, attrs): context[’summary’] = summary return context + def id_for_label(self, id_): + return None + class ReadOnlyPasswordHashField(forms.Field): widget = ReadOnlyPasswordHashWidget

Prior works have established how the growing usage of LMs that can code also carries a certain amount of risk. We identify three main risks that could arise when building and using a system like SWE-agent, then discuss how we incorporates measures that mitigate such problems.

First is the security risks that come with executing LM-generated code on device. When evaluating on software engineering tasks that feature an incredibly diverse number of issue descriptions, running code generations on a personal computing device can have negative side effects, such as the unintentional removal of digital assets (e.g., rm -rf asset/). To defend against this, we design SWE-agent to use ephemeral containers for both inference and evaluation. SWE-agent’s execution environment and the SWE-bench evaluation framework are both carried out in sand-boxed code environments, which is made possible with Docker. Executing code in a Docker container ensures that its effects are mostly isolated from the rest of the system. While not considered as secure as virtualized hardware isolation, the namespace isolation provided by Docker containers is deemed sufficient for code that is not deliberately engineered to exploit recent container escape vulnerabilities. More details are discussion is in §A.2.

Second, if the wider community develops interest for SWE-agent and builds upon it, it is also possible that illegitimate evaluation datasets or infrastructure can be used to inject testing devices with malicious code or instructions to generate malicious code. For instance, an unofficial repository claiming to host an inference/evaluation harness for SWE-agent/bench could include a task instance with an issue description that tells the LM agent to build key logging functionality and store it in a hidden folder. To eliminate confusion and reduce the possibility of such an event, we provide clear guidelines listed on our GitHub repositories, data stores, and websites indicating the official repositories and channels that we actively maintain. We also encourage third parties to incorporate any improvements into our codebase and help with integrating such contributions.

Lastly are the consequences of software engineering agents being deployed in the real world. Prior works have conceptualized and put forth prototypes of agents that can carry out offensive security measures. It is also not difficult to imagine that a system like SWE-agent can be incorporated into pipelines resulting in the production of malicious code. SWE-agent’s strong performance on SWE-bench implies that future AI systems will likely be increasingly adept in the aforementioned use cases. Releasing SWE-agent as an open source tool can support research towards designing sound, effective constraints for what software engineering agents are permitted to do. It can also serve as a system that legal experts and policy-making entities can experiment with to shape the future of what AI-driven end to end software engineering could look like.

To help the greater community reproduce the results presented in this paper and build on the SWE-agent platform, we open source all of our resources that were created for this project. The source code for the interactive pipeline, context management logic, command implementations, interface design, and everything else is entirely available in a GitHub repository. We provide extensive text and video documentation describing how to run and modify different parts of the codebase. Practitioners should be able to easily recover our findings by running the agent with simple scripts. We also open source all inference and evaluation artifacts (e.g., trajectories, code generations, evaluation execution traces, analysis notebooks). The results presented in the main and supplementary parts of this paper can be fully rendered from the data. Finally, we also maintain an active online help forum to assist with any reproduction problems or questions about how to build on ACI design and SWE-agent.

The final SWE-agent configuration has a small toolkit, albeit highly effective. With SWE-agent’s highly extensible design, we’re excited by the prospect of adding more tools, such as web browsing or static analysis, that can leverage more signals from an issue description and codebase to improve the % Resolved performance. Many tools trialed by prior works from software engineering and language model agents, such as static/dynamic analysis, spectrum based fault localization, or test generation via fuzzing could prove useful.

Second, in this work, the ACI development process and case studies are done manually. Many components of SWE-agent were crafted from observations of recurring behavior within a single trajectory or across multiple trajectories. Automating part or all of this process could not only accelerate work built on top of SWE-agent, but also provide greater insights into developing ACI principles for agentic software engineering. Contemporary works have explored automated prompting to improve performance on traditional sequence to sequence tasks, supplanting the need for manual prompt design. Thinking about automating ACI design raises immediately interesting questions around how such systems can scrutinize and iterate upon their own designs. Ensuring such horizon leads to incremental performance improvements across a longer horizon is also a challenging question.

Finally, the scope of SWE-agent is exclusively focused on programmatic tasks like software engineering and code generation. We’re curious to see whether the same principles of ACI and our observations of agent behavior are transferable to different domains. Recent work around applying LM agents to a variety of digital work applications have proliferated, such as use cases in education technology, data analysis, and enterprise workflows. We hope that thinking about improving performance of agentic workflows on these domains through the lens of ACI design can be a symbiotic process. For instance, for a task such a shopping on the web, in place of a typical Google-style search tool, could agents benefit from additional information beyond a list of each page’s title and snippet? Would the design vary if the nature of the downstream task were to change slightly? For a completely different task, such as navigating an internal company knowledge base to help a recently on-boarded employee, how might the search interface be best adjusted to the agent?

Similar to the progression of the field of User Experience (UX) and Human Computer Interaction (HCI) research, applying ACI to other domains could not only yield improvements in downstream task performance, but also further expand the list of ACI principles. We believe that the fundamental motivations for ACI, the foundational principles we put forth, and our case study of SWE-agent as an instantiation of implementing and improving an ACI can motivate such work.

SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering

Abstract

References

Meow summary

The problem

The trick: a purpose-built ACI

Why it helps

Where it still struggles

Make notes of your own

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 The Agent-Computer Interface

3 SWE-agent: Designing an ACI for Software Engineering

4 Experimental Setup

5 Results

5.1 Analysis of ACI Design

5.2 Analysis of Agent Behavior

6 Related Work

6.1 Software Engineering Benchmarks

6.2 Language Models as Agents

7 Discussion

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix

Appendix A SWE-agent Design

A.1 ACI Design

File viewer.

File editor.

Search & navigation.

A.2 Implementation

A.3 Configuration

Appendix B Extended Results

B.1 Hyperparameter Sweep

B.2 Model Performance

Performance by Repository.

Temporal Analysis.

B.3 Trajectory Analysis

B.3.1 Turns to Resolution

B.3.2 Walkthrough of Trajectory Phases

B.3.3 Breakdowns of Action Sequences

B.4 Failure Modes

B.5 Performance Variance and Pass@k Rate

B.6 Patch Generations

B.7 HumanEvalFix Evaluation

B.8 Dataset Information

B.9 Miscellaneous

Appendix C Prompts

Appendix D Qualitative Analysis

Analysis for psf/requests-2317

Analysis for pylint-dev/pylint-5859

Analysis for sympy/sympy-21614

Analysis for django/django-14411

Appendix E Statements

E.1 Ethics & Broader Impacts

E.2 Reproducibility

E.3 Limitations & Future Work

Meow summary

The problem

The trick: a purpose-built ACI

Why it helps

Where it still struggles

Make notes of your own