The findings show that coding-agent failures are predominantly driven by epistemic errors, typically begin within the first few execution steps, and often remain hidden until recovery is no longer possible, suggesting that improving coding-agent reliability requires earlier validation and intervention rather than relying solely on final-outcome evaluation.
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) coding agents are increasingly deployed to autonomously perform software engineering tasks in terminal-based environments, making their reliability a growing concern. Existing empirical studies investigate why coding agents fail, yet they largely treat failure as a final outcome rather than a temporal process, providing limited insight into how failures emerge, evolve, and become unrecoverable. We present the first large-scale empirical study of CLI coding-agent failure trajectories, introducing a process-oriented framework that analyzes failure through its onset, evolution, and recovery across execution trajectories. We first collect 3,843 execution trajectories generated by seven frontier models across three coding-agent scaffolds (OpenHands, MiniSWE, and Terminus2) on Terminal-Bench, then carefully filter them to obtain 1,794 complete and valid trajectories for manual annotation (over 63,000 execution steps), from which we derive 14 findings spanning failure occurrence, root causes, recovery, and cross-system consistency. Our findings show that coding-agent failures are predominantly driven by epistemic errors, typically begin within the first few execution steps, and often remain hidden until recovery is no longer possible, suggesting that improving coding-agent reliability requires earlier validation and intervention rather than relying solely on final-outcome evaluation.
This survey aims to clarify the conceptual boundaries of self-evolving coding agents and provide a foundation for designing more adaptive, reliable, and software-aware agentic systems.
H. Zhou, Haichuan Hu, Ye Shang et al.· 0 citations
This paper synthesizes 27 benchmark, taxonomy, and audit papers (2023-2026), spanning 19 distinct benchmarks, into a cross-cutting taxonomy of agent limitations, the first synthesis that integrates evidence across tool use, planning, long-horizon reasoning, multi-agent coordination, safety, and measurement validity into a single, unified taxonomy of LLM agent limitations.
Wael S. Albayaydh, Rui Zhao, Ivan Flechais· 1 citation
This review connects ten historical cognitive architectures, eight language-agent runtime families, and forty-two mechanism-focused modern systems to contribute a distinctive-mechanism catalog, an auditable evidence-depth framework, and a falsifiable agenda for testing these bundles as composable runtime invariants.
DDBench is introduced, a code-repair benchmark of 60 historical bugs mined from 13 open-source distributed systems, partitioned into three difficulty tiers, isolating the effect of debugging context from model capability.
Yibo Yan, Huijuan Wang, Junzhou He et al.· 0 citations
A controlled study of large language model agents across 260 configurations shows when multi-agent collaboration helps or hurts performance, and introduces a predictive model that selects the best architecture in 87% of held-out within-domain configurations.
Y. Kim, Ken Gu, Chanwoo Park et al.· Nature Machine Intelligence· 6 citations
TrajDebug is proposed, an error-lifecycle tracing framework that addresses long-trajectory error discovery with multi-granularity history compression and evidence-based error identification, and supports critical attribution by tracing each error's resolution status and terminal impact.