{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "Your coding assistant makes changes that still need substantial repair before merging.", "change": "Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.", "baseline": "The same coding agent, repository snapshot, tools, and token budget.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Correct patches, regression failures, human repair time, and total cost per accepted change.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2609.27585", "title": "Unity Insight: A Production Code--Asset Index for LLM Coding Agents in Unity Projects", "summary": "The technique replaces ad-hoc shell exploration and code-only retrieval by LLM coding agents with a persistent, typed cross-file index linking C# scripts to Unity assets (prefabs, scenes, ScriptableObjects) via GUIDs and .meta files. It costs the build and maintenance of a project-specific index plus integration of index-query tools into the agent harness; the paper reports no accuracy degradation, but provides no detail on indexing overhead or storage. It can fail when assets change without index refresh (stale GUID mappings), on non-Unity engines where the approach does not transfer, and the evidence base is narrow: 28 questions, two projects, one run per arm, from a single vendor's production system.", "rationale": "The token and latency reduction is plausible and cheap to validate on a small workload, but the evaluation is small, single-vendor, and Unity-specific, so the reader should pilot it on their own repositories before production adoption.", "technique": "Persistent code-asset cross-file index for Unity agents", "family": "agentes_de_codigo", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-09-23", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27585", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 0, "stars": 0, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "The technique replaces ad-hoc shell exploration and code-only retrieval by LLM coding agents with a persistent, typed cross-file index linking C# scripts to Unity assets (prefabs, scenes, ScriptableObjects) via GUIDs and .meta files. It costs the build and maintenance of a project-specific index plus integration of index-query tools into the agent harness; the paper reports no accuracy degradation, but provides no detail on indexing overhead or storage. It can fail when assets change without index refresh (stale GUID mappings), on non-Unity engines where the approach does not transfer, and the evidence base is narrow: 28 questions, two projects, one run per arm, from a single vendor's production system.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27585", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "In a paired experiment (28 questions, two Unity games, one run per arm), the index-backed agent used 53% fewer tokens and 52% less wall-clock time than a general-purpose exploration agent (paired sign tests, p<0.004).", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27585", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }