Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 0

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coordinating Agents on a Shared Git Workspace: An Empirical Study of Action-Space Observation for Agentic Software Engineering

Özaytürk, Hasen, Buzluca, Feza·2026·Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik

Abstract

Background. Multi-agent approaches to Large Language Model (LLM)-based agentic software engineering, specifically in automated program repair and issue resolution, have converged on architectural patterns that favour isolation: role specialisation, task decomposition in isolated worktrees, or best-of-N with external selection. Collaboration of homogeneous agents on a single task in a shared Git workspace remains understudied, and is actively discouraged in production guidance due to file-level write collisions. Aims. We investigate whether a shared-workspace configuration can be made viable and effective for autonomous bug fixing and patch production through action-space coordination - a paradigm in which agents observe one another’s commits, lifecycle transitions, and recent test or error outputs rather than exchanging natural-language messages. Method. We propose PASC (Peer-aware Action-Space Coordination), a layer in which two homogeneous LLM agents share a single Docker container and Git tree. Each agent’s effects are auto-committed under its identity, and each next observation is prepended with a structured peer-activity block. The final submission is the team patch derived from the shared history. Results. We evaluated PASC on the full Python subset of SWE-Bench Pro using two independently-developed LLMs, against an isolated single-agent baseline and a "silent" two-agent baseline without the peer-activity feed. PASC delivers a statistically significant lift over the single-agent baseline on both models. Crucially, the silent baseline is statistically equivalent to the single-agent one, confirming that the gain stems from action-space coordination rather than parallelism. PASC also outperforms a deployable federated alternative in which agents share the peer-activity feed but work in isolated worktrees. Relative to the silent baseline, PASC reduces cost per resolved task by ∼20% and destructive concurrent edits by ∼47%. Preliminary observations indicate that beyond two agents, active interference increases several-fold, suggesting that larger populations will require supplementary coordination mechanisms. Conclusions. A shared-workspace configuration of homogeneous agents coordinated through action-space observation improves effectiveness over an isolated single-agent baseline, and does so more economically than a comparable multi-agent baseline without peer awareness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.4230/lipics.esem.2026.18

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Özaytürk, H., & Buzluca, F.
Venue
Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
Publisher
Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
Published
2026
References
3

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.