For solo builders
A possible application for this research area. Paper-specific feasibility still needs a full-paper review.
Your coding assistant makes changes that still need substantial repair before merging.
What you would change
Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.
Try the idea on your product
A proposed first test. Set your budget and success criteria before running it.
Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.
Compare against
The same coding agent, repository snapshot, tools, and token budget.
- 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.
What to measure
Correct patches, regression failures, human repair time, and total cost per accepted change.
When to keep it
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.
Download test plan ↓abstract indexedPaperraft next step
Do not allocate compute yet.
This page uses the abstract and public adoption signal only. Request the deep report before relying on its recommendation.
Abstract-level screening only. Risks and infrastructure may not have been evaluated. This recommendation is not a reproduced result.- minimum test setup
- not reported
- published evidence setup
- not reported
- source-linked claims
- 0 of 2
- exposure checks
- 0 of 8
Why it was shortlisted
The technical change, research area, and reason it entered the archive.
- recommendation
- test
- research area
- coding agents
- technical change
- Two-stage AutoResearch with competing-behavior probe feedback
- published
- 2026-09-30
The method is implementable with a single GPU and API-based code agents, but its benefit depends on correct conflict identification and probe design, so the reader running LLM-assisted model-iteration loops should validate it on their own workload before adopting it as default practice.
About the technical core
Equations have not been fetched yet.
When reading the methods, identify the rule, algorithm, or evaluation protocol that produces the claimed change. An equation is useful here only if it explains that mechanism.
Inspect the original paperClaims and evidence
A claim is source-linked only when the PDF page and matching excerpt are available.
- claim 01Paperraft inference
Read the brief interpretation
ConflictGuide replaces single scalar task-performance feedback in LLM-driven AutoResearch loops with a two-stage regime: scalar exploration first, then probe-based feedback on competing model behaviors once gains plateau, with a reusable skill that identifies conflicts and specifies probes for a code agent to implement as metrics. It costs the manual or agent-assisted effort of identifying behavior conflicts and building probe metrics per model, plus additional evaluation compute per proposal, and it adds pipeline complexity in the form of a staged search schedule. It can fail when the chosen competing behaviors or probes are misidentified, when probe thresholds for retaining marginal-gain edits are miscalibrated, or in workloads where no meaningful behavior trade-off exists, in which case Stage II adds overhead without benefit.
This is a Paperraft inference. It is not pinned to a verified PDF passage.
Inspect the source - claim 02Paperraft inference
Reduces task and conflict-related errors by up to 28% and 14%, respectively, relative to scalar-only AutoResearch across five model families; these are percentage-point error reductions, not multiplicative factors.
This is a Paperraft inference. It is not pinned to a verified PDF passage.
Inspect the source
Exposure map
Author findings, Paperraft interpretations, and the next check. Missing analysis never counts as evidence of safety.
quality
Still unknownWhich tasks improve, and which regress against the baseline?
compute and memory
Still unknownWhat memory, hardware, and total compute does the complete method require?
latency
Still unknownAre startup time, typical response time, and slow requests measured separately?
operations
Still unknownWhat must be monitored, maintained, and rolled back?
software compatibility
Still unknownDoes the implementation support your model, runtime, and hardware?
security
Still unknownWhat new data access, permissions, or trust boundaries does it introduce?
data and training
Still unknownWhat data preparation or training is required, and is it included in the cost?
reproducibility
Still unknownAre code, versions, inputs, and evaluation scripts available?
Continue the investigation
A reading guide for coding agents.
Editorial prompts, not findings from this paper or a validated test plan. Detailed analysis is still pending for the topics below.
What to inspect
Does the evaluation use held-out repositories and tests the agent cannot modify?
Plan a fair comparison
Can you run both agents against the same repository snapshot, tool permissions, and time budget?
Questions for adoption
How many tasks pass independent tests, and what is the cost per accepted change?
Inside the paper
Preview the first 3 pages of the original PDF. Click the stack to turn the page.
The downloadable skill includes SKILL.md and evidence.json, with recorded findings and unanswered checks. TRY-IT.md adds a product test plan and a blank results sheet.
A reading aid for your agent. Findings still need validation.
Provisional research brief updated 2026-10-18. Paperraft has not reproduced this experiment.