arxiv-2609-00568 · paper

WiseSpec: Requirements-Driven Agents for Code Generation

Created: 2026-09-01 · Ingested: 2026-09-09

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00568(opens in a new tab)

Code generation aims to automatically generate source code from task requirements and has attracted significant attention with the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs). Despite remarkable progress, LLMs often struggle to generate correct code for complex software engineering tasks because task descriptions are frequently incomplete, ambiguous, or lack critical contextual information. Existing approaches primarily improve the capabilities of coding agents through more sophisticated tools, skills, and workflows, while largely overlooking the quality of the task requirements themselv

In brief

Rewriting the task description before coding, rather than improving the coding loop, raises repository-level issue resolution. WiseSpec builds a structured requirement from the codebase using a DSL of 9 primary attributes and 17 sub-attributes, scores that requirement by generating code plus tests and checking execution, and iteratively refines requirements classified as Conflict, Omission, or Ambiguity.

Evaluation covers 3 benchmarks (SWE-bench-Lite, SWE-bench-Verified, SWE-bench-Pro), 100 randomly sampled instances each, 2 models (DeepSeek-V3.2, Qwen-Plus-2025-12-01), against Agentless, Trae-agent, and Claude Code.

WiseSpec wins all 6 settings: %Resolved up 2%~29% and %Applied up 11%~63% over baselines, average improvement of 13.17% in %Resolved. On SWE-bench-Pro with Claude-Opus-4.8, Claude Code reaches 53% %Resolved and WiseSpec 56%. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test (α = 0.05) gives p < 2.5 × 10−4.

The effect is measured, but no ablation separates the 3 components, and there is no matched-budget baseline: WiseSpec runs extra generation, test synthesis, and refinement iterations, so the comparison confounds requirement quality with compute. The %Applied gains near 100% suggest much of the benefit is patch formatting rather than reasoning.

The stronger-model check is 1 benchmark, 1 model, +3 points. Nothing outside SWE-bench-style repository tasks was tested.

If you tune agent scaffolds, treat input specification as a tunable surface, but demand a compute-matched comparison first.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-09, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.