CooperBench: Why Coding Agents Cannot be Your Teammates Yet
Open accessAbstract
Resolving team conflicts requires not only task-specific competence, but also social intelligence to find common ground and build consensus. As AI agents increasingly collaborate on complex work, they must develop coordination capabilities to function as effective teammates. Yet we hypothesize that current agents lack these capabilities. To test this, we introduce CooperBench, a benchmark of over 600 collaborative coding tasks across 12 libraries in 4 programming languages. Each task assigns two agents different features that can be implemented independently but may conflict without proper coordination. Tasks are grounded in real open-source repositories with expert-written tests. Evaluating state-of-the-art coding agents, we observe the curse of coordination: agents achieve on average 30% lower success rates when working together compared to performing both tasks individually. This contrasts sharply with human teams, where adding teammates typically improves productivity. Our analysis reveals three key issues: (1) communication channels become jammed with vague, ill-timed, and inaccurate messages; (2) even with effective communication, agents deviate from their commitments; and (3) agents often hold incorrect expectations about others' plans and communication. Through large-scale simulation, we also observe rare but interesting emergent coordination behavior including role division, resource division, and negotiation. Our research presents a novel benchmark for collaborative coding and calls for a shift from pursuing individual agent capability to developing social intelligence.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Across more than 600 collaborative coding tasks, agents show a substantial coordination penalty even when their individual task capability is stronger.
“CooperBench makes this failure mode explicit: across more than 600 collaborative coding tasks, agents show a substantial coordination penalty even when their individual task capability is stronger [1].”
From Claim Plane: Enforceable Change Intents and Dynamic Scope for Parallel Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
CooperBench directly motivates the coordination problem studied here by showing that agents lose substantial capability when working together.
“CooperBench [1] directly motivates the coordination problem studied here by showing that agents lose substantial capability when working together.”
From Claim Plane: Enforceable Change Intents and Dynamic Scope for Parallel Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
Concurrent edits by multiple agents interfere with each other.
“When multiple agents need to modify a shared resource, their edits can interfere with each other: one agent's change may silently break an assumption that another agent is relying on [Khatua et al., 2026].”
From Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Khatua et al., 2026
In shared-artifact environments like software engineering, linguistically-governed multi-agent architectures frequently encounter execution conflicts when multiple agents concurrently modify the codebase.
“However, in shared-artifact environments like software engineering, these linguistically-governed architectures frequently encounter execution conflicts when multiple agents concurrently modify the codebase.”
From Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Khatua et al., 2026
Concurrent modification and merge conflicts remain a primary failure mode when engineering primitives are not explicitly modeled.
“However, recent empirical studies [Khatua et al., 2026] still report that concurrent modification and merge conflicts remain a primary failure mode when these engineering primitives are not explicitly modeled.”
From Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Khatua et al., 2026
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents
Geng, J., & Neubig, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21489
“When multiple agents need to modify a shared resource, their edits can interfere with each other: one agent’s change may silently break an assumption that another agent is relying on [Khatua et al., 2026].”
InfluentialClaim Plane: Enforceable Change Intents and Dynamic Scope for Parallel Coding Agents
Nikolaev, M. (2026) · arXiv · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Khatua, A., Zhu, H., Tran, P., Prabhudesai, A., Sadrieh, F., Lieberwirth, J. K., Yu, X., Fu, Y., Ryan, M. J., Pei, J., & Yang, D.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2601.13295
- OpenAlex
- W7125231248
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Keywords
- collaborative programming, coding agents, multi-agent coordination, benchmark, team conflict resolution, social intelligence, agent communication, negotiation, role division, resource partitioning, large language models
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
