Daily Papers

A widespread practice in software development is to tailor coding agents to repositories using context files, such as AGENTS.md, by either manually or automatically generating them. Although this practice is strongly encouraged by agent developers, there is currently no rigorous investigation into whether such context files are actually effective for real-world tasks. In this work, we study this question and evaluate coding agents' task completion performance in two complementary settings: established SWE-bench tasks from popular repositories, with LLM-generated context files following agent-developer recommendations, and a novel collection of issues from repositories containing developer-committed context files. Across multiple coding agents and LLMs, we find that context files tend to reduce task success rates compared to providing no repository context, while also increasing inference cost by over 20%. Behaviorally, both LLM-generated and developer-provided context files encourage broader exploration (e.g., more thorough testing and file traversal), and coding agents tend to respect their instructions. Ultimately, we conclude that unnecessary requirements from context files make tasks harder, and human-written context files should describe only minimal requirements.

Persistent context files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) are standard practice for guiding AI coding agents, yet evidence for their effectiveness is contradictory. We present a controlled ablation of context-injection strategy across two frontier agents (Claude Code and Codex), 17 real tasks from 3 repositories (15 shared + 2 Codex-only), and 288 evaluated runs with gold-test evaluation. Context strategy does not measurably move correctness on either agent (bounded to <=10-15pp via equivalence testing). A failure-mode triage reveals why: agents fail on implementation skill---feature design, pattern selection, exact wiring---not missing repository knowledge that a context file could supply; a manipulation probe confirms the real AGENTS.md never converts a near-miss to a pass on either agent. We further show that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents' informative bands. We release all code, data, and analysis.

Detailed profession-specific system prompts raise token use and estimated cost per response without a consistent accuracy gain. We evaluate Scientific Agents, an open-source corpus of 503 profession-specific AGENTS.md profiles, with Gemini 3.8 Flash via OpenRouter in the Pi agent harness. We compare matched profiles with four controls: a minimal baseline ("You are a helpful assistant"), the profile's opening role sentence, a generic scientific rigor guide, and a profile from an unrelated domain. Across nine text-based science benchmarks (4,531 sampled questions, 100 matched profiles), 4,488 items completed all five conditions after API-error retries, scored with automated, rule-based grading. The average profile-baseline accuracy difference is -0.6 percentage points (95% bootstrap interval [-1.5, +0.2] across fixed tasks), and no benchmark shows a statistically clear improvement. Matched profiles produced 1.5-2.3 times as many output tokens and cost 2.2-4.5 times more per successful call. On 60 tool-using BioMysteryBench bioinformatics problems (three runs each for baseline and profile), mean solve rates were 46.7% with the profile and 56.7% at baseline, a difference of -10.0 percentage points (95% interval [-16.7, -3.3]) driven by more frequent token- and time-limit stops under the profile. Longer prompts had one unexpected operational advantage: on SuperGPQA, frequent provider API drops left the short baseline with a correct first-pass answer on only 54.0% of items, against 71.6% with the profile. Generic and mismatched prompts were about as reliable, so this gain comes from prompt length or formatting rather than domain expertise. For the tested model and tasks, loading full profession profiles by default does not improve accuracy and costs considerably more; whether selective retrieval of profile sections or open-ended scientific tasks would change this remains to be tested.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly execute complex, autonomous software engineering tasks, developers rely on natural language instruction files such as AGENTS.md to express project-specific coding conventions, tooling restrictions, and architectural boundaries. However, because these instructions remain passive text, agents frequently violate documented constraints due to context window saturation or conflicting local context. In autonomous settings without real-time human supervision, such violations rapidly compound into technical debt. To ground autonomous agents in repository constraints, we introduce ContextCov, a framework that transforms passive natural language instructions into executable guardrails. Unlike prompt-only or reflection-only compliance approaches, ContextCov compiles documented constraints into three complementary checks: static AST queries for code patterns, runtime shell shims that intercept prohibited commands, and architectural validators that enforce structural rules. Acting as an automated, continuous reviewer, ContextCov intercepts agent actions and returns immediate, reproducible violation traces, enabling self-correction before non-compliant changes are finalized. We evaluate ContextCov on SWE-bench Lite (12 repositories, 300 tasks). Compared to prompt-only and LLM reflection baselines, ContextCov achieves 88.3% constraint compliance (vs. 67.0% and 50.3%) with 3.4x lower feedback cost, while maintaining functional correctness. The source code and evaluation results are available at https://github.com/reSHARMA/ContextCov.