Re-executing Coding-Agent Evaluations: Unchanged Decisions and Unresolved Policy Risk

Abstract

Executable tests grade large language model (LLM) coding-agent patches for leaderboards, rewards and self-improvement. Two preregistered re-execution studies returned negative results. SWE-bench Pro v1's offline option rejected none of 59 accepted Go patches whose grading configuration changed. Their exploratory, unweighted upper confidence limit is 4.95% under candidate independence, leaving a 3% exposed-patch risk unresolved; the preregistered estimator uses inverse sampling-probability weights. An extension was inconclusive. In a selected stratum, a reconstructed module cache built from the reference solution's dependencies rejected accepted alternatives from four models that passed with their own dependencies. Re-executing 1,929 selected agent-version/task evaluations from the Darwin G\"odel Machine's archive preserved best-agent selection and system-variant ranking, with search history and scores of evaluations not rerun fixed. Exploratory host, image and adapted-grader comparisons also preserved them. Seven of 23 disagreements with archived verdicts did not recur on a second host; rebuilt images changed 16 three-run majority verdicts (0.83%) under four-CPU execution. We provide an evidence-to-claim summary, lessons for grader audits and an anonymous replication package. These results concern accepted patches and fixed-history decisions; general policy safety and adaptive-learning robustness require broader evaluations.