Does Code Cleanliness Affect Coding Agents? A Controlled Minimal-Pair Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20049v1
• Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 16:06:26 GMT
• Title: Does Code Cleanliness Affect Coding Agents? A Controlled Minimal-Pair Study
• Abstract summary: We show that code cleanliness affects an agent's ability to navigate and modify it.<n>Our findings suggest that traditional maintainability principles remain highly relevant in the era of AI-driven development.
• Score: 0.18907108368038217
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As autonomous coding agents see rapid adoption, their evaluation has primarily focused on task completion rates holding the target codebase fixed. This leaves a critical question unanswered: does the structural and stylistic quality, or ``cleanliness'' of the underlying code affect an agent's ability to navigate and modify it? To isolate the effect of code cleanliness from agent capability, we introduce an evaluation protocol built around minimal pairs: repositories that match on architecture, dependencies, and external behaviour, but differ on static-analysis rule violations and cognitive complexity. The pairs are constructed in both directions, by agent pipelines that either degrade a clean repository or clean a messy one. We author 33 tasks across six such pairs, evaluated through hidden tests at the application's public surface. Across 660 trials with Claude Code, code cleanliness does not change the agent's pass rate. However, it substantially alters the agent's operational footprint: agents working on cleaner code use 7 to 8% fewer tokens and reduce file revisitations by 34%. Our findings suggest that traditional maintainability principles remain highly relevant in the era of AI-driven development, shaping the computational cost and navigational efficiency of coding agents. Code cleanliness joins model choice, harness, and prompting as a factor that materially affects agent behaviours.

Related papers

• Adversarial Review: Structured Disagreement for Grounded Agentic Code Review [0.0]
  We study whether a subagent paradigm can support a middle ground: minimal agentic cooperation without the overhead of large multi-agent teams.<n>We introduce Adversarial Review (AR), a minimal cooperative code-review protocol in which a main coding agent works with a reviewer and a critic agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T21:58:17Z)
• TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimization [57.14479960309637]
  Coding agents are increasingly used to accelerate code generation in many downstream tasks.<n>Despite their value, agent-generated code tends to be larger and more verbose than the corresponding human-written implementation.<n>We show that the cause lies in the agent's own search process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T17:06:19Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• Is Agent Code Less Maintainable Than Human Code? [17.226150835020146]
  We investigate how agent code compares to human code in maintenance settings.<n>We find that agents are less effective at resolving tasks when building on agent code compared to human code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T23:56:14Z)
• SmellBench: Towards Fine-Grained Evaluation of Code Agents on Refactoring Tasks [34.43588103259487]
  SmellBench proactively injects code smells into clean code from real-world repositories.<n>It contains 294 cases spanning 7 popular smell types, 3 difficulty levels, 2 instruction settings across 7 real-world repositories.<n>Experiments show that the best combination - Qwenwen Code + Sonnet 4.5 - achieved only a 50.34 score of smell elimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T01:49:07Z)
• Code as Agent Harness [107.31925305395957]
  In emerging agentic systems, code is no longer only a target output.<n>Code increasingly serves as an operational substrate for agent reasoning, acting, environment modeling, and execution-based verification.<n>This survey provides a unified roadmap toward executable, verifiable, and stateful AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:03Z)
• How to Interpret Agent Behavior [56.59836196946289]
  We introduce ACT*ONOMY, a taxonomy for describing and analyzing agent behavior at runtime.<n>By providing a shared vocabulary, ACT*ONOMY helps researchers, agent designers, and end users interpret agent behavior more consistently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T14:52:40Z)
• ClawArena: Benchmarking AI Agents in Evolving Information Environments [61.664633997138004]
  ClawArena is a benchmark for evaluating AI agents in evolving information environments.<n>Each scenario maintains a complete hidden ground truth while exposing the agent only to noisy, partial, and sometimes contradictory traces.<n> evaluation is organized around three coupled challenges: multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T17:55:23Z)
• SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks [55.76734816061826]
  We introduce SlopCodeBench, a language-agnostic benchmark comprising 20 problems and 93 checkpoints.<n>We track two trajectory-level quality signals: verbosity, the fraction of redundant or duplicated code, and structural erosion.<n>No agent solves any problem end-to-end across 11 models; the highest checkpoint solve rate is 17.2%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T19:26:44Z)
• Why Agentic-PRs Get Rejected: A Comparative Study of Coding Agents [0.0]
  We show that Pull Requests produced using coding agents (Agentic-PRs) are accepted less often than PRs that are not labeled as agentic (Human-PRs)<n>A large proportion of rejected PRs lack explicit feedback, making their rejection reasons difficult to determine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T05:24:18Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents [70.2077308846307]
  We manually create 200 targeted adversarial tasks and evaluation scripts in a realistic threat model on top of VisualWebArena.<n>We find that we can successfully break latest agents that use black-box frontier LMs, including those that perform reflection and tree search.<n>We also use ARE to rigorously evaluate how the robustness changes as new components are added.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T17:32:48Z)
• CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review [12.163258651539236]
  This work introduces tool, a novel multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) system for code review automation. CodeAgent incorporates a supervisory agent, QA-Checker, to ensure that all the agents' contributions address the initial review question. Results demonstrate CodeAgent's effectiveness, contributing to a new state-of-the-art in code review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T14:43:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.