A measurement protocol is applied that traces each thought through these files, from the task where it forms to the task where it is corrected or abandoned, and constitute a white-box analysis of how a coding agent continually learns.
Abstract
We study how a coding agent learns across a sequence of abstract reasoning tasks. The agent runs on a frozen foundation model inside a fixed harness and acts by writing and running Python and shell scripts. It retains no state across turns other than its written artifacts, so every thought it forms, carries, corrects or abandons leaves a trace, where a thought is any belief, rule or plan committed to a file. We let the agent play ARC-AGI-3, a set of interactive reasoning games that provide no instructions. Each game is a sequence of levels, and a strategy that clears one level can fail on the next, so every new level is in effect a new task. The agent records what it learns as Python scripts and text notes, while the harness keeps a complete log of every action and observation. Our contribution is a measurement protocol that traces each thought through these files, from the task where it forms to the task where it is corrected or abandoned, applied to seven evaluation runs with three backbones from two model families. Scripts written for one task are almost never called again in a later task (33 of 630 references cross a task boundary), because most scripts embed the state of the current level. Instead, the agent rewrites its knowledge into new scripts, keeping the general rules and dropping the level-specific details, and abandons 74% of the scripts it wrote before a boundary. The notes, which only the model reads, are never revised: the agent appends without removing earlier claims, and the contradictions that accumulate are settled against the log. Because the log preserves everything, the agent forgets selectively, not catastrophically. The most costly error is a hard-coded value carried into a task where it no longer holds. These findings come from the files the agent wrote, without access to the model, and constitute a white-box analysis of how a coding agent continually learns.
Coding agents such as Claude Code also follow text files that developers write for them: a project file, skills the agent may choose to open, and rules that load automatically when the agent reads matching files. We call these files the agent's harness. Developers add to it whenever they correct the agent, but one succ...
Meta-reasoning, an inference-time harness that makes agentic meta-reasoning an explicit and structured reasoning process, keeps improving over the tested budget ranges where direct control plateaus, though its overhead can hurt at small budgets.
P. Dahal, A. Bakhtin, Taco Cohen et al.· 1 citation
A novel and scalable framework that rewrites a coding agent's context as the repository changes rather than as the context grows, and can achieve a higher resolve rate in all experiments spanned by six coding agents and three edit-heavy benchmarks with little computational overhead.
Zi-Yang Yu, Liang Zhao, Bo-Wen Zhu et al.· 0 citations
These lessons are distill into concrete recommendations for building robot systems that improve themselves, each paired with an experiment that could prove it wrong.
Three minimal copying models, one per decision and with a single free parameter each, reproduce the heavy-tailed distribution of how many agents met on a page, the frequency of the pieces from which the agents built their names, and the patchwork of pages that are internally consistent and different from one another.
G. De Marzo, Nicola Alboré, David García· 4 citations· ⚡1
Language-model agents often reason before they act, and the value of monitoring that reasoning depends on how it relates to their actions. We ask how an agent's actions depend on its reasoning when the correct action depends on a changing state. In a small file-system task, background events announce which file's lock...