SWE-Together × SWE-INTERACT
Two ways to measure how coding agents work with people
Slide contents
1. SWE-Together × SWE-INTERACT
Two ways to measure how coding agents work with people
2. One-shot scores hide the dialogue cost
Single-turn
Full specification upfront
Final code score
Steering stays invisible
Multi-turn
Requirements arrive gradually
Review and corrections
Dialogue cost becomes measurable
3. Same day, two research questions
SWE-Together · Meta*
Bottom-up: real sessions
How much steering to succeed?
109 tasks · frozen rubric
SWE-INTERACT · Scale AI
Top-down: benchmark tasks
What is lost in dialogue?
75 tasks · original verifier
4. Only 109 tasks survive strict filtering
5. A session becomes a reproducible task
SWE-Together diagram showing three stages from a real session to a reproducible benchmark task
Raghavendra et al. · SWE-Together · Figure 2 · PDF p. 3 · arXiv:2606.29957v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
6. The simulator reacts to the live trajectory
Three contexts
Session intent anchors
Agent's latest turn
Simulator memory
One action
Stay silent · ask
Redirect · add requirement
Check an external artifact
7. Every reply combines three contexts
SWE-Together user-simulator context diagram with anchors, current turn, memory, and a structured action
Raghavendra et al. · SWE-Together · Figure 4 · PDF p. 5 · arXiv:2606.29957v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
8. Success and steering are separate axes
9. Stronger models need fewer corrections
SWE-Together plots showing an inverse relationship between model capability and User Correction
Raghavendra et al. · SWE-Together · Figure 6 · PDF p. 9 · arXiv:2606.29957v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
10. Realism comes through severe selection
109 of 11,260 · 0.97%
LLM simulator + LLM judge
Two runs per task
Text only, no interruptions
11. Seventy-five tasks become dialogues
12. Delivery changes; the verifier stays fixed
SWE-INTERACT diagram turning autonomous tasks into interactive workflows with progressive requirement disclosure
Wu et al. · SWE-INTERACT · Figure 1 · PDF p. 2 · arXiv:2606.30573v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
13. Expert Nitpicker can inspect before replying
14. Shell grounds feedback in the workspace
SWE-INTERACT architecture with separate agent and user-simulator containers and shell access to the workspace
Wu et al. · SWE-INTERACT · Figure 2 · PDF p. 4 · arXiv:2606.30573v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
15. Dialogue nearly halves resolve rate
16. Interaction costs more across every resource
SWE-INTERACT table comparing single-turn and multi-turn resolve rate, steps, tokens, and cost
Wu et al. · SWE-INTERACT · Table 1 · PDF p. 5 · arXiv:2606.30573v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
17. Bugs and forgotten requirements: 68% of labels
18. Revealed requirements can disappear before submission
SWE-INTERACT chart showing five failure modes and their definitions
Wu et al. · SWE-INTERACT · Figure 5 · PDF p. 8 · arXiv:2606.30573v1 · CC BY 4.0 · cropped
19. Two methods reveal the same signal
SWE-Together
109 real sessions · opencode
Text replay · frozen rubric
U-Corr · natural, selective
SWE-INTERACT
75 benchmark tasks · native harness
Shell user · original verifier
Gap · controlled, persona-bound
20. Evals must price outcomes and steering
Success / verifier reward
User Correction
Single-turn → multi-turn gap
Requirement ledger
Commit + review each iteration
A recommendation, not an internal experiment report
21. These papers do not cover production yet
Open-ended ambiguity
Other user personas
Production toolchains
Pure model-only comparison
22. Multi-turn is a separate capability axis
Book Cube
Paper links and new engineering research breakdowns are in the channel
Alexander Polomodov, Technical Director & Fellow, T-Technologies
@Book_Cube