{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "An agent looks good in demos, but you cannot tell which product tasks it fails.",
    "change": "Use the study's evaluation idea to inspect a small set of tasks with human-checked answers.",
    "baseline": "Your current evaluator and a manually reviewed reference set.",
    "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": "Agreement with human review, missed failures, false alarms, and evaluation cost per task.",
    "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": "2610.13022",
  "title": "Don't Guess, Just Ask: Evaluating Interactive Requirement Clarification for Repository-Level Software Development",
  "summary": "The paper introduces a benchmark that replaces evaluating coding agents directly on vague or fully specified prompts by inserting a measurable pre-coding clarification stage with LLM user simulators, requirement documents, and code evaluation artifacts. Adopting the underlying practice costs additional interaction turns (latency and API tokens) plus a user-simulation or human-in-the-loop harness, but requires no extra GPU memory or training. It can fail because stronger clarification does not reliably improve requirement document quality, results vary substantially across user personas, and coding-agent harnesses add no document-quality gain over base LLMs, so the clarification loop may add cost without downstream benefit.",
  "rationale": "The clarification step itself is cheap to add via third-party APIs, but the paper's own finding that clarification effectiveness does not translate into better requirement documents means the reader must validate on their own workload before committing it to production.",
  "technique": "Interactive requirement clarification benchmark for coding agents",
  "family": "avaliacao_de_agente",
  "recommendation": "testar",
  "published": "2026-10-09",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13022",
  "independent_implementations": 0,
  "total_implementations": 0,
  "stars": 0,
  "citations": 0,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The paper introduces a benchmark that replaces evaluating coding agents directly on vague or fully specified prompts by inserting a measurable pre-coding clarification stage with LLM user simulators, requirement documents, and code evaluation artifacts. Adopting the underlying practice costs additional interaction turns (latency and API tokens) plus a user-simulation or human-in-the-loop harness, but requires no extra GPU memory or training. It can fail because stronger clarification does not reliably improve requirement document quality, results vary substantially across user personas, and coding-agent harnesses add no document-quality gain over base LLMs, so the clarification loop may add cost without downstream benefit.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13022",
      "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": ""
}