Skip to content
Preprint

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

Jul 2026 · 2 citations · 55 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This paper empirically study the development and release evolution of five major open-source agent harnesses, revealing extreme release velocities exceeding two releases per day and thousands of issues within months, and performs the first controlled longitudinal study that isolates the agent harness contribution.

Abstract

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 iterative reasoning loops. While these agent harnesses evolve at extreme velocities, no study has examined how this evolution affects agent quality (i.e., effectiveness and efficiency) over time. Practitioners regularly report quality regressions after agent harness updates, yet consistently attribute them to the underlying model rather than the harness itself. In this paper, we address this gap by conducting the first controlled longitudinal study that isolates the agent harness contribution. Unlike prior work that fixes the agent harness and varies the model, we fix the model and vary only the agent harness, evaluating 35 sequential releases to measure their impact on agent effectiveness and efficiency. We first empirically study the development and release evolution of five major open-source agent harnesses (i.e., Codex, Qwen Code, Gemini, OpenCode, and OpenHands), revealing extreme release velocities exceeding two releases per day and thousands of issues within months. We then perform a controlled deep dive into 35 sequential releases of the Qwen Code CLI, evaluating each against 50 stratified SWE-bench Verified tasks while holding the underlying LLM constant. We trace the resulting quality fluctuations to specific development patterns and architectural components, and illustrate our findings with concrete qualitative evidence linking individual pull requests to measured quality shifts.

View source

Similar papers

Don’t Blame the Large Language Model: How Scaffolding Evolution Shapes Coding Agent Quality

The first controlled longitudinal study that isolates the scaffolding’s contribution to agent quality over time is conducted, revealing that despite continuous development activity and growing codebase complexity of the scaffoldings, there is no statistically significant improvement in SWE-bench benchmark score across releases for a given fixed LLM version.

Hao Li, O. Sghaier, Bram Adams · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

The Devil Is in the Interface: Evaluating How Tool Architecture Shapes Coding Agent Behavior

This work compares six tool architectures that hold the underlying information and actions similar while varying how they are organized and exposed to the model, across three actors and a total of 11,700 trajectories to show that, even when tools provide similar capabilities, tool architecture changes agent behavior.

Xiangzhe Xu, H. Saghir, Qianhui Wu et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

Agent Gym: A Framework for Continuous Evaluation and Evolution of LLM Agents Through Human-in-the-Loop Feedback

Agent Gym is introduced, a modular, domain-agnostic framework that wraps any existing LLM-based agent in a continuous evaluation-and-evolution loop and introduces the Spec-to-Note Gap, an autoencoder-inspired view of agentic system transparency.

Pouya Ghiasnezhad Omran, Michael Zimmermann, Duncan Cambridge et al. · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Self-Evolving Coding Agents

This survey aims to clarify the conceptual boundaries of self-evolving coding agents and provide a foundation for designing more adaptive, reliable, and software-aware agentic systems.

H. Zhou, Haichuan Hu, Ye Shang et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

HELIX: Model-Harness Co-evolution for Recursive Self-Improvement

HELIX provides an auditable interface for studying model-harness co-evolution for recursive self-improvement and expands current capability and creates learning signal for the next model; model updates motivate the next round of harness evolution.

Tianyu Fan, Chao Huang · 1 citation