{ "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": "2610.11593", "title": "Runnable Commit Untangling for Coding Agents", "summary": "RucTangle replaces monolithic, tangled agent-generated patches (or prior untangling methods that ignore commit ordering) with an agentic untangling procedure that enforces runnability after each commit. It costs additional agent calls, build and test executions per commit to verify runnability, and pipeline complexity in the agent workflow. It can fail if the project's build or test suite is slow, flaky, or incomplete, since runnability verification then becomes expensive or unsound, and the demonstrated repair benefit (+5.2 points) is measured only on regression-repair tasks with specific agents.", "rationale": "The method is implementable with third-party APIs and a single GPU and shows a measured maintenance benefit, but the pass@1 gain is modest and workload-specific, so it warrants a pilot on the reader's own agent-generated patches rather than immediate adoption.", "technique": "Runnable commit untangling for agent patches (RucTangle)", "family": "agentes_de_codigo", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-10-08", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11593", "independent_implementations": 1, "total_implementations": 2, "stars": 14, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "RucTangle replaces monolithic, tangled agent-generated patches (or prior untangling methods that ignore commit ordering) with an agentic untangling procedure that enforces runnability after each commit. It costs additional agent calls, build and test executions per commit to verify runnability, and pipeline complexity in the agent workflow. It can fail if the project's build or test suite is slow, flaky, or incomplete, since runnability verification then becomes expensive or unsound, and the demonstrated repair benefit (+5.2 points) is measured only on regression-repair tasks with specific agents.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11593", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "All untangled histories runnable versus 20.6%-37.4% unrunnable for baselines on 131 patches; +5.2% absolute pass@1 when agents repair regressions with untangled histories in context (453 regression patches).", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11593", "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": "" }