CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-03

CoACT: Action-Preserving Observation Compression for Coding Agents

Haorui Chen, Yuancheng Zhu, Yitong Zhang, Jia Li

LLM-based coding agents solve software-engineering tasks through iterative interactions with development environments, where returned observations accumulate in the context and become a major source of inference cost. Observation compression reduces this cost by shortening observations before they are appended to the context. However, existing methods still exhibit an unsatisfactory efficiency-effectiveness trade-off, as they do not explicitly model how compression affects the agent's subsequent behavior. This paper proposes CoACT, an action-preserving observation compression method for coding agents. CoACT is built on next-action preservation (NAP), which requires a compressed observation to induce the same next action as the raw observation. By checking the agent's immediate next action, NAP provides a practical signal for whether a compression preserves the information needed for continued task solving. During training, a teacher model first generates multiple compressed candidates of each observation. CoACT then uses an action-preservation reward based on NAP to filter out candidates that would change the agent's next action, and uses a length-reduction reward to choose compact candidates as supervision for a lightweight compressor. Experiments on SWE-bench Verified with three agentic models show that CoACT reduces average total token consumption by 33.0% while maintaining task-solving effectiveness close to the uncompressed agent.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-02

Reasoning effort, not tool access, buys first-try reliability in agentic code generation: an observational study

Achint Mehta

Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software. This study tested that assumption directly. Ninety independent agent runs bu…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-12

When Does Restricting a Coding Agent to execute_code Help? A Regime $\times$ Agent-Design Ablation

Hong Yang, Qi Yu, Travis Desell

Modern coding agents expose multiple tool surfaces -- IDE primitives, bash, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) code-execution -- and the field has shipped three contradictory claims about which one matters. We run the missing crossed comparison: an integrity-clean three-arm ablatio…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CRcs.AIcs.SE2026-07-22

IssueTrojanBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents Against Malicious Issue Requests

Ankur Singh, Jinqiu Yang, Tse-Hsun Chen

AI coding agents powered by LLMs are increasingly integrated into real-world software development, where they generate, edit, and execute code with autonomous access to local files and tools. Coding agents inherit security risks from both the LLM backbone, where adversarial promp…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-04

Don't Blame the Large Language Model: How Agent Harness Evolution Shapes Coding Agent Quality

Oussama Ben Sghaier, Hao Li, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan

Coding agents, autonomous systems that use large language models (LLMs) to resolve software engineering tasks, rely on agent harness: a middleware layer in between a developer and a large language model that orchestrates system prompts, tool execution, context management, and ite…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-06-29

SWE-Together: Evaluating Coding Agents in Interactive User Sessions

Yifan Wu, Zhuokai Zhao, Songlin Li, Ho Hin Lee, Jiacheng Zhu, Shirley Wu, et al.

Most coding-agent benchmarks are static: an agent receives a complete task description up front and is judged only by its final code. Real coding assistance is interactive, with users clarifying goals, adding constraints, and correcting mistakes over multiple turns. We introduce…

View free PDFSource page