# TestJack: Should you trust the results in coding benchmarks? Agentic Coding Benchmarks Auditing via Evaluator Evolution

Preprint · Shuangjie Yao, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Simin Chen, Baishakhi Ray, Dawn Song

- Archive id: arxiv:2610.10619
- Published: 2026-10-07
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10619
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10619
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.10619
- Provenance: arxiv

## Abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly reshaping software engineering, accompanied by an explosion of new code benchmarks. Yet nearly all existing benchmarks still rely on the same decades-old criterion: a solution is correct if it passes a fixed set of unit tests. Such tests are often insufficient: they check only part of what the task requires, so agents can reward hack them or silently miss required behavior while still passing every test. As a result, higher benchmark scores may partly reflect better adaptation to the evaluator rather than better problem solving. Existing works focus on static test augmentation: they strengthen each task's tests once, before any trial is seen, and thus overlook how real trials actually fail. We introduce TestJack, a scalable framework for evaluating patches beyond fixed tests. For each trial, TestJack generates tests targeting prompt requirements the patch may violate, retains only tests passed by the ground-truth patch, and re-examines any trial failures. Each confirmed failure is thus supported by a replayable test. To reduce evaluation cost, we also introduce a lightweight variant which audits a random sample of trials in depth and reuses the resulting tests across all trials for the same task. Across 6 frontier model backends and 5 benchmarks such as DeepSWE and SWE Marathon, we find that about 34.4% of the model trials currently judged correct violate the task requirements, lowering the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%. Our results reveal a fundamental limitation of current coding-agent evaluation: as LLMs become better at optimizing against fixed evaluators, those evaluators themselves must become more adaptive.

_Abstract reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.