Failure as a Process: An Anatomy of CLI Coding Agent Trajectories

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09510v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:25:56 GMT
• Title: Failure as a Process: An Anatomy of CLI Coding Agent Trajectories
• Abstract summary: Large language model (LLM) coding agents are increasingly deployed to autonomously perform software engineering tasks in terminal-based environments.<n>Existing empirical studies investigate why coding agents fail, yet they largely treat failure as a final outcome rather than a temporal process.<n>We present the first large-scale empirical study of CLI coding-agent failure trajectories, introducing a process-oriented framework that analyzes failure through its onset, evolution, and recovery across execution trajectories.
• Score: 21.513740407266354
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language model (LLM) coding agents are increasingly deployed to autonomously perform software engineering tasks in terminal-based environments, making their reliability a growing concern. Existing empirical studies investigate why coding agents fail, yet they largely treat failure as a final outcome rather than a temporal process, providing limited insight into how failures emerge, evolve, and become unrecoverable. We present the first large-scale empirical study of CLI coding-agent failure trajectories, introducing a process-oriented framework that analyzes failure through its onset, evolution, and recovery across execution trajectories. We first collect 3,843 execution trajectories generated by seven frontier models across three coding-agent scaffolds (OpenHands, MiniSWE, and Terminus2) on Terminal-Bench, then carefully filter them to obtain 1,794 complete and valid trajectories for manual annotation (over 63,000 execution steps), from which we derive 14 findings spanning failure occurrence, root causes, recovery, and cross-system consistency. Our findings show that coding-agent failures are predominantly driven by epistemic errors, typically begin within the first few execution steps, and often remain hidden until recovery is no longer possible, suggesting that improving coding-agent reliability requires earlier validation and intervention rather than relying solely on final-outcome evaluation.

Related papers

• HarnessEvolve: Learning from Reference Trajectories for Reliable Agent Self-Evolution [11.431479238875712]
  We introduce HarnessEvolve, a self-evolving framework that learns from reference trajectories to achieve reliable agent self-evolution.<n>We conduct extensive experiments on several benchmarks spanning open-domain and enterprise scenarios, using different models and agent frameworks.<n>Results demonstrate that HarnessEvolve consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across all benchmarks and settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T07:31:18Z)
• FailForge: Distilling Procedural Competence from Persistent Failures into Code Agents [49.519184792774304]
  FailForge is an agentic framework that converts failed rollouts into training signal.<n>FailForge recovers over 26% of previously failed instances at marginal additional cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T08:22:57Z)
• TRAJDEBUG: Tracing Error Lifecycle to Identify Critical Failures in Long-Horizon Agent Trajectories [48.638067300108276]
  Critical error detection aims to locate the earliest error step in a failed trajectory that is responsible for the final failure.<n>Long trajectories make it difficult to identify individual errors, since the evidence for judging a step may be scattered across distant instructions, observations, and prior context.<n>We propose Traj Debug, an error-lifecycle tracing framework that addresses long-trajectory error discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T17:51:20Z)
• TrajAudit: Automated Failure Diagnosis for Agentic Coding Systems [18.833806809109536]
  Agentic systems have been widely studied to automate software engineering jobs such as bug fixing.<n>Existing automated failure diagnosis approaches leverage task execution trajectories, yet their effectiveness degrades as trajectory length and complexity increase.<n>For repository-level coding tasks specifically, trajectories are laden with noise, such as redundant program structure and verbose code context.<n>We propose TrajAudit, the first failure diagnosis framework for repository-level coding trajectories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T05:24:37Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• TRAJEVAL: Decomposing Code Agent Trajectories for Fine-Grained Diagnosis [23.834704102474927]
  Code agents can resolve GitHub issues, yet when they fail, current evaluation provides no visibility into where or why.<n>We introduce TRAJEVAL, a diagnostic framework that decomposes agent trajectories into three interpretable stages.<n>We validate that these diagnostics are predictive, achieving model-level Pass@1 prediction within 0.87-2.1% MAE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T05:27:03Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• TraceCoder: A Trace-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Debugging of LLM-Generated Code [11.207330722400764]
  We present TraceCoder, a framework that emulates the observe-analyze-repair process of human experts.<n>The framework first instruments the code with diagnostic probes to capture fine-grained runtime traces.<n>It then conducts causal analysis on these traces to accurately identify the root cause of the failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T16:59:48Z)
• DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [48.971606069204825]
  DoVer is an intervention-driven debug framework for large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems.<n>It augments hypothesis generation with active verification through targeted interventions.<n>DoVer flips 18-28% of failed trials into successes, achieves up to 16% milestone progress, and validates or refutes 30-60% of failure hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T09:23:48Z)
• Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories [10.751728274263536]
  This paper presents an empirical study of agent trajectories, namely the execution traces capturing the steps agents take when attempting to resolve software issues.<n>We analyse trajectories from three state-of-the-art code agents (OpenHands, SWE-agent, and Prometheus) on the SWE-Bench benchmark, examining both successful and failed attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T18:58:13Z)
• Metacognitive Self-Correction for Multi-Agent System via Prototype-Guided Next-Execution Reconstruction [58.51530390018909]
  Large Language Model based multi-agent systems excel at collaborative problem solving but remain brittle to cascading errors.<n>We present MASC, a metacognitive framework that endows MAS with real-time, unsupervised, step-level error detection and self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:35:37Z)
• An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving [12.571536148821144]
  We analyze the performance and efficiency of three SOTA tools, spanning both pipeline-based and agentic architectures, in automated issue solving tasks of SWE-Bench-Verified.<n>To move from high-level performance metrics to underlying cause analysis, we conducted a systematic manual analysis of 150 failed instances.<n>The results reveal distinct failure fingerprints between the two architectural paradigms, with the majority of agentic failures stemming from flawed reasoning and cognitive deadlocks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T13:07:52Z)
• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)

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.