Papers › SWE-AGI: Benchmarking Specification-Driven Software Construction with MoonBit in the...
SWE-AGI: Benchmarking Specification-Driven Software Construction with MoonBit in the Era of Autonomous Agents
Zhirui Zhang, Hongbo Zhang, Haoxiang Fei, Zhiyuan Bao, Yubin Chen, Zhengyu Lei, Ziyue Liu, Yixuan Sun, Mingkun Xiao, Zihang Ye, Yu Zhang, Hongcheng Zhu, Yuxiang Wen, Heung-Yeung Shum
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive coding capabilities, their ability to autonomously build production-scale software from explicit specifications remains an open question. We introduce SWE-AGI, an open-source benchmark for evaluating end-to-end, specification-driven construction of software systems written in MoonBit. SWE-AGI tasks require LLM-based agents to implement parsers, interpreters, binary decoders, and SAT solvers strictly from authoritative standards and RFCs under a fixed API scaffold. Each task involves implementing 1,000-10,000 lines of core logic, corresponding to weeks or months of engineering effort for an experienced human developer. By leveraging the nascent MoonBit ecosystem, SWE-AGI minimizes data leakage, forcing agents to rely on long-horizon architectural reasoning rather than code retrieval. Across frontier models, gpt-5.3-codex achieves the best overall performance (solving 19/22 tasks, 86.4%), outperforming claude-opus-4.6 (15/22, 68.2%), and kimi-2.5 exhibits the strongest performance among open-source models. Performance degrades sharply with increasing task difficulty, particularly on hard, specification-intensive systems. Behavioral analysis further reveals that as codebases scale, code reading, rather than writing, becomes the dominant bottleneck in AI-assisted development. Overall, while specification-driven autonomous software engineering is increasingly viable, substantial challenges remain before it can reliably support production-scale development.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2602.09447")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 20 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 8 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · violated contract; 3 ran · our draft was wrong; 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 20 samples from 2 repositories, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
20 samples harvested; 12 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 20 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
0d26355a0593d1cd · report
3e52f0603142fd16 · report
5523b61639d585a9 · report
5f4997aeaa42de77 · report
b5f7c09f9a07afea · report
2d84a21c452eeb6f · report
d47e662df259f5cf · report
e49ed3ddb63cda58 · report
db5f1c7ce134271e · report
bdd2704909cc54c3 · report
c39d6db42bcfe568 · report
719368dd9fb84c7b · report
48b9834c9dd08085 · report
bd08390f95c0fe75 · report
7a0a58d0e71fa07f · report
52c4ad71a7b7b591 · report
6c8362c015ee20dd · report
786d0d4d4541702b · report
f0c203f3c5165c98 · report
6fed0709f2c2de4c · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.09447, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections