arXiv:2608.11727v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When a coding agent obeys a rule, it may simply have been going to do that anyway. Existing instruction-following benchmarks cannot tell the difference: they concentrate rules in the user turn, while coding-agent benchmarks emphasize final task success. We introduce Harness-IF, which scores operational rules one at a time from execution evidence: 60 realistic multi-turn coding items drawn from a 642-rule library, 256 rules receiving verdicts, placed on the five configurable surfaces a deployed agent reads. To separate compliance from coincidence we introduce Against-Prior Accuracy (AP-Acc), which scores only rules labeled as opposing unprompted defaults, observed by re-running tasks with the rule withheld across nine probe builds and curated otherwise. Across 12 frontier models, accuracy spans 72.1-85.9% and AP-Acc 66.1-78.6%; every model is worse on against-prior rules, by 3.6 to 7.4 points (mean 5.81), and the direction survives a common-support analysis with item-clustered intervals. Aggregate scores therefore overstate compliance by a model-specific margin: prior control leaves the top build unchanged and exchanges three adjacent rank pairs. A counterbalanced conflict pilot on nine separate builds adds a second result: pooled precedence does not follow prompt depth, with system prompts, project files, and user instructions ahead of tool and skill descriptions.
Abstract: When a coding agent obeys a rule, it may simply have been going to do that anyway. Existing instruction-following benchmarks cannot tell the difference: they concentrate rules in the user turn, while coding-agent benchmarks emphasize final task success. We introduce Harness-IF, which scores operational rules one at a time from execution evidence: 60 realistic multi-turn coding items drawn from a 642-rule library, 256 rules receiving verdicts, placed on the five configurable surfaces a deployed agent reads. To separate compliance from coincidence we introduce Against-Prior Accuracy (AP-Acc), which scores only rules labeled as opposing unprompted defaults, observed by re-running tasks with the rule withheld across nine probe builds and curated otherwise. Across 12 frontier models, accuracy spans 72.1-85.9% and AP-Acc 66.1-78.6%; every model is worse on against-prior rules, by 3.6 to 7.4 points (mean 5.81), and the direction survives a common-support analysis with item-clustered intervals. Aggregate scores therefore overstate compliance by a model-specific margin: prior control leaves the top build unchanged and exchanges three adjacent rank pairs. A counterbalanced conflict pilot on nine separate builds adds a second result: pooled precedence does not follow prompt depth, with system prompts, project files, and user instructions ahead of tool and skill descriptions.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: