Skip to content
← Back to explorer

CodeScout: An Effective Recipe for Reinforcement Learning of Code Search Agents

Lintang Sutawika, Aditya Bharat Soni, Bharath Sriraam R R, Apurva Gandhi, Taha Yassine, Sanidhya Vijayvargiya, Yuchen Li, Xuhui Zhou, Yilin Zhang, Leander Melroy Maben, Graham Neubig · Mar 18, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on. While repository-level code localization has been performed using embedding-based retrieval approaches such as vector search, recent work has focused on developing agents to localize relevant code either as a standalone precursor to or interleaved with performing actual work. Most prior methods on agentic code search equip the agent with complex, specialized tools, such as repository graphs derived from static analysis. In this paper, we demonstrate that, with an effective reinforcement learning recipe, a coding agent equipped with nothing more than a standard Unix terminal can be trained to achieve strong results. Our experiments on three benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified, Pro, and Lite) reveal that our models consistently achieve superior or competitive performance over 2-18x larger base and post-trained LLMs and sometimes approach performance provided by closed models like Claude Sonnet, even when using specialized scaffolds. Our work particularly focuses on techniques for re-purposing existing coding agent environments for code search, reward design, and RL optimization. We release the resulting model family, CodeScout, along with all our code and data for the community to build upon.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

2/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 40%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Our experiments on three benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified, Pro, and Lite) reveal that our models consistently achieve superior or competitive performance over 2-18x larger base and post-trained LLMs and sometimes approach performance provided by closed models like Claude Sonnet, even when using specialized scaffolds."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Simulation Env
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

SWE-benchSWE-bench Verified

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on.
  • While repository-level code localization has been performed using embedding-based retrieval approaches such as vector search, recent work has focused on developing agents to localize relevant code either as a standalone precursor to or interleaved with performing actual work.
  • Most prior methods on agentic code search equip the agent with complex, specialized tools, such as repository graphs derived from static analysis.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on.
  • While repository-level code localization has been performed using embedding-based retrieval approaches such as vector search, recent work has focused on developing agents to localize relevant code either as a standalone precursor to or…
  • In this paper, we demonstrate that, with an effective reinforcement learning recipe, a coding agent equipped with nothing more than a standard Unix terminal can be trained to achieve strong results.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • A prerequisite for coding agents to perform tasks on large repositories is code localization - the identification of relevant files, classes, and functions to work on.
  • In this paper, we demonstrate that, with an effective reinforcement learning recipe, a coding agent equipped with nothing more than a standard Unix terminal can be trained to achieve strong results.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Simulation Env

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: SWE-bench, SWE-bench Verified

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.