cd /news/artificial-intelligence/swe-touch-benchmarking-coding-agents… · home topics artificial-intelligence article
[ARTICLE · art-85518] src=trae1oung.github.io ↗ pub= topic=artificial-intelligence verified=true sentiment=· neutral

SWE-Touch: Benchmarking Coding Agents When Users Touch the Code

Researchers introduced SWE-Touch, a benchmark evaluating coding agents' ability to repair software after users directly edit code, finding that most models' performance drops significantly when user edits conflict with the task. Claude Opus 4.8 retained 96.0% of its Vanilla-solved tasks under Counter-Edit, while Qwen3-Coder-480B retained only 60.8%, and MiniMax M2.7 dropped 13.8 percentage points. The benchmark includes tasks from SWE-Bench Pro and DeepSWE, with aggregate resolve rates declining by 4.9 and 3.4 percentage points respectively.

read4 min views1 publishedAug 4, 2026

The agent repairs the original checkout

The issue, repository, tools, verifier, and interaction budget follow the standard autonomous setting.

SWE-Touch tests whether a coding agent can complete a software repair after a user has directly changed the code in their shared workspace.

When a user contributes code during an ongoing task, can the agent interpret that edit against the issue, repository, and tests and still reach a correct solution?

Each task is evaluated under matched conditions. The user edit is the only change to the live task state.

The issue, repository, tools, verifier, and interaction budget follow the standard autonomous setting.

A small, plausible but task-conflicting edit and a contextual user message enter the same live workspace.

Resolve rates are percentages. Verified results report mean ± standard deviation.

Retention is the fraction of tasks solved under Vanilla that remain solved under Counter-Edit.

Counter-Edit minus Vanilla, percentage points

Model Vanilla Counter-Edit Δ Retention
Claude Opus 4.8 85.2 ± 1.8 83.3 ± 0.6 −1.8 96.0
GPT 5.5 80.5 ± 1.0 79.2 ± 0.6 −1.3 95.0
GLM 5.1 72.7 ± 2.0 68.3 ± 0.8 −4.3 83.3
MiniMax M2.7 76.5 ± 1.5 62.7 ± 2.4 −13.8 78.1
MiniMax M2.5 75.7 ± 3.3 66.2 ± 1.0 −9.5 78.3
Qwen 3.7 Max 75.2 ± 1.0 70.3 ± 0.8 −4.8 90.3
Qwen3-Coder-480B 57.2 ± 3.5 40.7 ± 1.0 −16.5 60.8
Kimi K2.6 70.3 ± 2.0 64.3 ± 3.4 −6.0 87.2
DeepSeek V4 Pro 74.8 ± 0.8 63.8 ± 1.8 −11.0 81.5

Finding. The ordering changes substantially: Qwen3-Coder-480B and MiniMax M2.7 lose more than 13 points, while GPT 5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 retain over 95% of their Vanilla-solved tasks.

Selected SWE-Bench Pro and DeepSWE tasks use a longer budget and trajectory-relative delivery.

Model SWE-Bench Pro DeepSWE
Vanilla Counter Δ Vanilla Counter Δ
Claude Opus 4.8 68.0 68.0 0.0 56.0 46.0 −10.0
GPT 5.5 38.0 38.0 0.0 64.0 56.0 −8.0
GLM 5.1 43.1 32.8 −10.3 19.4 16.8 −2.5
MiniMax M2.7 30.6 24.6 −6.0 2.2 2.2 0.0
MiniMax M2.5 32.6 24.6 −8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Qwen 3.7 Max 36.0 26.0 −10.0 4.1 2.1 −2.0
Qwen3-Coder-480B 20.0 14.0 −6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kimi K2.6 50.0 48.0 −2.0 18.0 12.0 −6.0
DeepSeek V4 Pro 34.0 32.0 −2.0 4.1 2.0 −2.1
Mean 39.1 34.2 −4.9 18.6 15.2 −3.4

Finding. The aggregate direction persists on both harder benchmarks, although the effect varies by model and task family.

Condition GPT 5.5 GLM 5.1 M2.7 Qwen 3.7
Vanilla 81.5 70.5 76.5 74.0
Message, K=3 79.5 73.0 76.5 77.0
Code edit, K=3 80.5 66.5 67.0 71.5
Both, K=1 78.5 72.0 64.5 71.5
Both, K=3 79.5 69.0 64.5 71.0
Both, K=5 78.0 69.0 60.0 69.0

Exploratory resolve rates on SWE-bench Verified. K is the maximum number of interventions.

Finding. Messages alone do not reproduce the effect consistently. Direct changes to executable code are the stronger intervention in this comparison.

Benchmark Reference lines / files Counter lines / files
Verified 13.3 / 1.20 7.0 / 1.04
Pro 361.0 / 5.44 13.0 / 1.40
DeepSWE 730.2 / 7.24 10.8 / 1.52

Mean changed lines and files per patch.

Finding. Counter-Edits remain small even when the underlying reference repair spans hundreds of lines and several files.

Agents sometimes remove or replace the inserted edit and still fail. Recognizing a problematic contribution does not guarantee that the model can restore the repository to a correct state.

The release separates reusable benchmark records from the Harbor-based evaluation implementation.

Runner, schemas, user simulator, validation gates, and reproducibility commands.

Task records, critical regions, Counter-Edits, and validation evidence.

Install the package, validate the release, and launch Vanilla or SWE-Touch evaluation.

── more in #artificial-intelligence 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @swe-touch 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/swe-touch-benchmarki…] indexed:0 read:4min 2026-08-04 ·