← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.07286 · v1
How Should Agents See Code? Rethinking Code Representations for Agentic Software Engineering
首次提交 2026-11-05 09:08
版本更新 2026-11-05 09:08
雷达观测 2026-11-06 10:04
摘要
LLM agents are increasingly used for repository-level software engineering tasks. However, most agents still access repositories through raw files, lexical search, and shell commands, treating code primarily as text. This paper investigates map-based code-representation workflows as a design variable in agentic software engineering, examining how different repository views change agents' retrieval behavior, task success, token use, and latency. In this paper, we study five code-representation workflows: abstract syntax trees, call graphs, module dependencies, documentation-enriched search, and a hybrid workflow that combines them. Each workflow exposes a repository map that the agent can query during a task. We evaluate Claude Code with Haiku 4.5 against a raw-tool baseline on four repository-level tasks: fault localization with LinuxFLBench, repository-level code generation and repair with SWE-bench Pro, test generation with SWT-bench, and security patching with SecBench. The results show that representation workflows are most useful as token-saving tools when localization is the bottleneck, while their success gains narrow when the decisive step is patch or test authoring. On LinuxFLBench, all five workflows improve recall@10 over the baseline (0.757-0.829 vs. 0.717) and reduce token usage by 25-39%. On SWE-bench Pro, resolution remains close to the baseline (44.3-50.6% vs. 49.0%) while token usage drops by 17-26%. On SecBench, Callgraph has the highest patch-resolution rate in this sample (34.3% vs. 28.9%) and uses fewer tokens, but all workflows increase latency. On SWT-bench, Hybrid and Docs have the highest reproducing-test rates in this sample (47.8% and 47.2% vs. 44.7%), but all workflows use more tokens and take longer. Overall, map-based workflows change both what the agent inspects and how much it spends, but their benefits are task-dependent rather than universal.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-05 09:08 · 最新观测版本
How Should Agents See Code? Rethinking Code Representations for Agentic Software Engineering
LLM agents are increasingly used for repository-level software engineering tasks. However, most agents still access repositories through raw files, lexical search, and shell commands, treating code primarily as text. This paper investigates map-based code-representation workflows as a design variable in agentic software engineering, examining how different repository views change agents' retrieval behavior, task success, token use, and latency. In this paper, we study five code-representation workflows: abstract syntax trees, call graphs, module dependencies, documentation-enriched search, and a hybrid workflow that combines them. Each workflow exposes a repository map that the agent can query during a task. We evaluate Claude Code with Haiku 4.5 against a raw-tool baseline on four repository-level tasks: fault localization with LinuxFLBench, repository-level code generation and repair with SWE-bench Pro, test generation with SWT-bench, and security patching with SecBench. The results show that representation workflows are most useful as token-saving tools when localization is the bottleneck, while their success gains narrow when the decisive step is patch or test authoring. On LinuxFLBench, all five workflows improve recall@10 over the baseline (0.757-0.829 vs. 0.717) and reduce token usage by 25-39%. On SWE-bench Pro, resolution remains close to the baseline (44.3-50.6% vs. 49.0%) while token usage drops by 17-26%. On SecBench, Callgraph has the highest patch-resolution rate in this sample (34.3% vs. 28.9%) and uses fewer tokens, but all workflows increase latency. On SWT-bench, Hybrid and Docs have the highest reproducing-test rates in this sample (47.8% and 47.2% vs. 44.7%), but all workflows use more tokens and take longer. Overall, map-based workflows change both what the agent inspects and how much it spends, but their benefits are task-dependent rather than universal.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗