{ "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": "2610.12269", "title": "Cadence: Strategic Guidance for Coding Agents", "summary": "Cadence replaces fixed-interval or rigid heuristic monitoring of coding agents with a two-tier intervention scheme (advisory vs. replacement guidance) coupled to an adaptive inspection scheduler that tightens or relaxes supervision based on detected execution health. It adds an extra LLM-based monitor on top of the agent, introducing additional token cost per inspection, implementation complexity, and dependence on the monitor model's judgment quality. It can fail when the monitor misclassifies execution health, triggering unnecessary interventions that inflate cost or missing subtle reasoning errors that the two-tier scheme does not capture, and the gains are validated only on SWE-bench Lite with two specific agents.", "rationale": "The monitor-agent pattern is feasible with a 24 GB GPU or API calls, but the claimed resolve-rate gains are specific to SWE-bench Lite and two agent frameworks, so the reader should validate overhead and benefit on their own coding workload before production adoption.", "technique": "Adaptive runtime monitoring for coding agents", "family": "agentes_de_codigo", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-10-08", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12269", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 0, "stars": 0, "citations": null, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "Cadence replaces fixed-interval or rigid heuristic monitoring of coding agents with a two-tier intervention scheme (advisory vs. replacement guidance) coupled to an adaptive inspection scheduler that tightens or relaxes supervision based on detected execution health. It adds an extra LLM-based monitor on top of the agent, introducing additional token cost per inspection, implementation complexity, and dependence on the monitor model's judgment quality. It can fail when the monitor misclassifies execution health, triggering unnecessary interventions that inflate cost or missing subtle reasoning errors that the two-tier scheme does not capture, and the gains are validated only on SWE-bench Lite with two specific agents.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12269", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "Highest resolve rate on 300 SWE-bench Lite tasks, outperforming vanilla agents by 25.33% (+76 resolved tasks) on mini-swe-agent and 15.67% (+47 tasks) on Moatless, with competitive token efficiency.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12269", "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": "" }