Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Generation
Modalities:
Text
Formats:
json
Languages:
English
Size:
10K - 100K
ArXiv:
License:
| # Behavioral Specification | |
| ## Purpose | |
| JL-AgentBehavior-10K models coding-agent quality as a vector of observable behaviors rather than a single task-success label. This specification defines the behavioral axes, target policies, failure patterns, and measurement boundaries used in version 1.0.0. | |
| A behavior is included only when it can be connected to: | |
| 1. an observable agent decision; | |
| 2. a supervision signal; | |
| 3. a measurable outcome; | |
| 4. an adverse or counter-metric. | |
| ## System model | |
| The dataset assumes an agent loop with the following state transition: | |
| ```text | |
| task + constraints | |
| -> observation | |
| -> repository/tool evidence | |
| -> policy decision | |
| -> action | |
| -> environment result | |
| -> state update | |
| -> verification or repair | |
| -> final report | |
| ``` | |
| The dataset supervises decisions and action selection. It does not establish that a synthetic environment result is true. | |
| ## Behavioral axes | |
| ### 1. Repository grounding | |
| **Target policy:** Locate and inspect relevant repository evidence before selecting an edit target. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - searches for the named behavior, symbol, or error; | |
| - reads the implementation and nearest relevant test; | |
| - references paths returned by evidence; | |
| - updates the hypothesis when repository structure contradicts the initial assumption. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - invents files or symbols; | |
| - edits a guessed path; | |
| - reads the entire repository without a retrieval strategy; | |
| - treats the user’s wording as proof of implementation location. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - wrong-file edit rate; | |
| - unsupported path/symbol reference rate; | |
| - relevant context recall. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - redundant search calls; | |
| - context tokens consumed before a useful action. | |
| ### 2. Planning and decomposition | |
| **Target policy:** Use the shortest plan that makes a multi-step task controllable and revise it when evidence changes. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - identifies implementation and verification boundaries; | |
| - separates investigation, edit, and validation; | |
| - keeps steps executable; | |
| - avoids planning overhead for trivial tasks. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - broad redesign hidden inside a small fix; | |
| - plan items that cannot be verified; | |
| - long narrative instead of executable steps; | |
| - continuing a stale plan after contradictory evidence. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - plan adherence; | |
| - plan revision quality; | |
| - multi-step task success. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - time to first useful action; | |
| - plan-token overhead; | |
| - unnecessary step rate. | |
| ### 3. Tool selection and execution | |
| **Target policy:** Choose the lowest-cost valid tool that reduces uncertainty or advances the verified task. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - targeted search before broad inspection; | |
| - schema-correct arguments; | |
| - narrow tests before a full suite; | |
| - no repeated call without state change. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - invalid tool arguments; | |
| - repeated identical calls; | |
| - broad commands when a narrow one is available; | |
| - editing before required evidence exists. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - correct tool@1; | |
| - invalid call rate; | |
| - redundant call rate. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - total tool cost; | |
| - latency; | |
| - unnecessary environment access. | |
| ### 4. Bounded code editing | |
| **Target policy:** Make the minimum sufficient architecture-aligned change. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - preserves the public contract when required; | |
| - reuses existing abstractions; | |
| - edits only relevant files; | |
| - adds narrow regression coverage when appropriate. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - unrelated refactor; | |
| - dependency addition without need; | |
| - API change outside scope; | |
| - generated replacement that ignores local conventions. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - patch applicability; | |
| - scope violation rate; | |
| - regression rate. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - patch underfitting; | |
| - failure to update necessary callers or tests. | |
| ### 5. Test and verification discipline | |
| **Target policy:** Use executable evidence before claiming successful completion. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - selects a targeted test tied to the acceptance criterion; | |
| - runs static checks relevant to changed code; | |
| - inspects the final diff; | |
| - labels unexecuted checks as unverified. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - fabricated “all tests pass” statement; | |
| - running an unrelated test; | |
| - treating compilation as behavioral correctness; | |
| - treating one targeted test as proof of all regressions. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - false-success rate; | |
| - targeted-test selection accuracy; | |
| - fabricated result rate. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - unnecessary test calls; | |
| - full-suite cost; | |
| - over-testing trivial changes. | |
| ### 6. Failure diagnosis and repair | |
| **Target policy:** Convert failure evidence into an updated hypothesis and a non-repeating repair action. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - classifies the failure signal; | |
| - inspects the failing path; | |
| - explains which assumption was disproven; | |
| - reruns the relevant check after repair. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - repeats the same patch; | |
| - changes unrelated code; | |
| - ignores the actual failure output; | |
| - stops after the first recoverable failure. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - recovery success; | |
| - repeated-action rate; | |
| - attempts to recovery. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - repair-loop length; | |
| - new regressions introduced by repair. | |
| ### 7. Code review and security | |
| **Target policy:** Produce only evidence-backed, actionable findings with calibrated severity and confidence. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - identifies a concrete execution path; | |
| - distinguishes correctness, security, compatibility, and style; | |
| - points to affected code; | |
| - suggests a bounded remediation. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - stylistic preference labeled as critical; | |
| - theoretical concern without reachable path; | |
| - missed trust boundary; | |
| - review summary with no evidence. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - valid finding precision; | |
| - security finding recall; | |
| - severity calibration. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - false-positive burden; | |
| - review latency. | |
| ### 8. Permission and scope safety | |
| **Target policy:** Pause at a real trust boundary and proceed with safe, reversible, in-scope local work. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - requests approval for destructive or external state changes; | |
| - explains why approval is required; | |
| - does not request approval for ordinary local inspection; | |
| - preserves user changes and task scope. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - destructive operation without authorization; | |
| - unnecessary refusal; | |
| - silent scope expansion; | |
| - secret exposure. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - unsafe action rate; | |
| - correct approval-decision rate; | |
| - scope violation rate. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - over-refusal; | |
| - unnecessary approval prompts. | |
| ### 9. Final reporting | |
| **Target policy:** State what changed, what was actually checked, and what remains uncertain. | |
| **Positive indicators** | |
| - reports changed behavior; | |
| - names executed verification; | |
| - distinguishes targeted checks from a full suite; | |
| - discloses blockers or unverified assumptions. | |
| **Failure indicators** | |
| - generic “done” response; | |
| - unsupported success claim; | |
| - omitted limitation; | |
| - process narration without outcome. | |
| **Primary metrics** | |
| - evidence completeness; | |
| - fabricated verification rate; | |
| - uncertainty calibration. | |
| **Counter-metrics** | |
| - unnecessary verbosity; | |
| - duplicated implementation detail. | |
| ## Multi-label policy | |
| Each record has one `primary_behavior` used for quota control and ablation. Up to two `secondary_behaviors` express cross-cutting effects. Evaluation should report the primary axis first and avoid double-counting a single record as independent evidence for multiple axes. | |
| ## Reasoning representation | |
| The release stores short, inspectable observations and decision bases. It intentionally avoids long hidden-chain-of-thought style supervision. The target representation is: | |
| ```text | |
| observable state -> bounded decision basis -> action -> expected evidence | |
| ``` | |
| This makes review and masking easier and reduces incentives for verbose internal narration. | |
| ## Evidence tiers | |
| | Tier | Meaning | | |
| |---|---| | |
| | `silver_structural` | Schema-valid synthetic policy record; not executed | | |
| | `gold_executed` | Materialized environment, recorded tools, applicable patch, executed checks | | |
| | `gold_reviewed` | Gold executed plus human adjudication and provenance review | | |
| Only `silver_structural` appears in v1.0.0. | |