arXiv preprint ·
Precedent or Intent? What Coding Agents Follow When Evolving Existing Code
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Existing code reveals past implementation decisions but rarely explains the reasoning behind them. When coding agents implement new features or modify existing functionality, past decisions may conflict with new task instructions. This raises a fundamental question for agentic software evolution: when multiple implementations satisfy the same functional requirements, how do coding agents decide whether to follow existing code or new task instructions? We investigate this question through bidirectional, controlled experiments in purpose-built repositories, followed by validation in real-world open-source repositories. Our approach isolates three competing sources of guidance: (1) agents' default preferences, (2) repository precedents, and (3) explicit task instructions. We conduct 5,625 trials across four coding agents and six implementation pairs, with validation in four open-source repositories spanning three programming languages. We find that agents share the same default implementation choices, yet overwhelmingly follow repository precedent when it conflicts with those defaults (359/360 trials). Crucially, not all precedents carry equal influence: three supporting local files yield 96% adoption, compared with only 4% for sibling-resource files, and changing file placement alone can shift adoption from 0% to 100% at a fixed example count. When new task intent conflicts with existing code, written priority rules achieve substantially higher success than code examples alone (59/60 versus 38/60 joint successes for two agents on two implementation pairs). The effectiveness of explicit rules also extends to open-source repositories, where a harness-loaded rule raises joint success from 0/120 to 117/120. These findings motivate design-decision traceability that preserves not only implementation choices but also the rationale and priorities that should guide future changes.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Template-Free Dynamic Invariant Detection
Do Open-Source Video Ad Clients Follow VAST 4.3? An Empirical Study of Player Conformance
Mentorship, Interrupted: How GenAI Disrupts the GSoC Pipeline and Why Mentors Matter More
PyReprism: A Shared Lexical Foundation for Polyglot Code Analysis
Scaling Lean Theorem Proving for Real-World Code Verification
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.