VQV Signal
According to a post on X by @kbhaskar_95, which summarizes Amazon's BOBA paper by Cuadron and Gupta, ten coding agents average about 95% on isolated requests. On 20-step chains of requests on a repository, only 51% pass every hidden test with no feedback. A bare "verification failed" message plus one repair raises that to about 59%. The post notes that the specifications are model-written and not yet human-reviewed.
According to a post on X by @kbhaskar_95, which summarizes Amazon's BOBA paper by Cuadron and Gupta, ten coding agents average about 95% on isolated requests. On 20-step chains of requests on a repository, only 51% pass every hidden test with no feedback. A bare "verification failed" message plus one repair raises that to about 59%. The post notes that the specifications are model-written and not yet human-reviewed.
AI-assisted summary based on the listed source.
Summarizing Amazon's BOBA paper (Cuadron, Gupta), the post says ten coding agents average about 95% on isolated requests, but only 51% of 20-step chains on a repo pass every hidden test with no feedback; a bare "verification failed" plus one repair lifts that to about 59%. Specs are model-written and not yet...
The gap suggests that strong scores on single tasks may not carry over to long, multi-step coding work in real codebases, which matters for teams considering agents for repository maintenance. Because the specs are model-written and not yet human-reviewed, the results should be treated as provisional. Watch for the full paper and any human review of the specifications.
VQV organizes public signals from inspectable sources. It does not independently verify the underlying report.
Signal Strength reflects source quality, relevance, freshness and evidence. Public Interest helps organize discovery; it is not proof of truth.
VQV surfaced this signal because it is recent, relevant to AI Search, connected to Scobleizer News Pulse (X).
No login, cookies, social SDKs, or automatic posting.
