Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Beyond Final Code: A Process-Oriented Error Analysis of Software Development Agents in Real-World GitHub Scenarios

Zhi Chen, Wei Ma, Lingxiao Jiang · Mar 16, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Recent

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Recent

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Recent

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks. These agents go beyond just generation of final code; they engage in multi-step reasoning, utilize various tools for code modification and debugging, and interact with execution environments to diagnose and iteratively resolve issues. However, most existing evaluations focus primarily on static analyses of final code outputs, yielding limited insights into the agents' dynamic problem-solving processes. To fill this gap, we conduct an in-depth empirical study on 3,977 solving-phase trajectories and 3,931 testing-phase logs from 8 top-ranked agents evaluated on 500 GitHub issues in the SWE-Bench benchmark. Our exploratory analysis shows that Python execution errors during the issue resolution phase correlate with lower resolution rates and increased reasoning overheads. We have identified the most prevalent errors -- such as ModuleNotFoundError and TypeError -- and highlighted particularly challenging errors like OSError and database-related issues (e.g., IntegrityError) that demand significantly more debugging effort. Furthermore, we have discovered 3 bugs in the SWE-Bench platform that affect benchmark fairness and accuracy; these issues have been reported to and confirmed by the maintainers. To promote transparency and foster future research, we publicly share our datasets and analysis scripts.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

Automatic metrics, Long Horizon tasks

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

SWE Bench

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

Evidence snippet: To fill this gap, we conduct an in-depth empirical study on 3,977 solving-phase trajectories and 3,931 testing-phase logs from 8 top-ranked agents evaluated on 500 GitHub issues in the SWE-Bench benchmark.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Accuracy

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Furthermore, we have discovered 3 bugs in the SWE-Bench platform that affect benchmark fairness and accuracy; these issues have been reported to and confirmed by the maintainers.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.

Human Data Lens

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: SWE-bench
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.

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

Key Takeaways

  • AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.
  • These agents go beyond just generation of final code; they engage in multi-step reasoning, utilize various tools for code modification and debugging, and interact with execution environments to diagnose and iteratively resolve issues.
  • However, most existing evaluations focus primarily on static analyses of final code outputs, yielding limited insights into the agents' dynamic problem-solving processes.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • 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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

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.