PreprintCited by 3Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Confucius Code Agent: Scalable Agent Scaffolding for Real-World Codebases

Open access
Wong, Sherman, Qi, Zhenting, Wang, Zhaodong, Hu, Nathan, Lin, Samuel, Ge, Jun, Gao, Erwin, Chen, Wenlin +3 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Real-world software engineering tasks require coding agents that can operate on massive repositories, sustain long-horizon sessions, and reliably coordinate complex toolchains at test time. Existing research-grade coding agents offer transparency but struggle when scaled to heavier, production-level workloads, while production-grade systems achieve strong practical performance but provide limited extensibility, interpretability, and controllability. We introduce the Confucius Code Agent (CCA), a software engineering agent that can operate at large-scale codebases. CCA is built on top of the Confucius SDK, an agent development platform structured around three complementary perspectives: Agent Experience (AX), User Experience (UX), and Developer Experience (DX). The SDK supports a unified orchestrator with advanced context management for long-context reasoning, a persistent note-taking system for cross-session continual learning, and a modular extension system for reliable tool use. In addition, we introduce a meta-agent that automates the construction, evaluation, and refinement of agents through a build-test-improve cycle, enabling rapid agent development on new tasks and tool stacks. Instantiated on the Confucius SDK using the meta-agent, CCA demonstrates strong performance on real-world software engineering tasks. On SWE-Bench-Pro, CCA achieves a Resolve@1 of 59%, exceeding prior research baselines as well as commercial results, under identical repositories, model backends, and tool access.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2512.10398

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many existing studies evaluate coding harnesses as complete systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear.

    “yet existing work typically evaluates harnesses as monolithic systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear.”

    From An Empirical Study of Harness Design for Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2025

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, S., Qi, Z., Wang, Z., Hu, N., Lin, S., Ge, J., Gao, E., Chen, W., Du, Y., Yu, M., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417295762
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
coding agents, meta-agents, long-context reasoning, software engineering tasks

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