PreprintCited by 0AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

GitHarness: Git Init Your Harness Working Memory for Perpetual User Requirements

Open access
Yang, Zhibang, Jiang, Xinke, Liu, Yuxuan, Zhang, Mingyu, Zhang, Zhixin, Song, Zhengxing, Fang, Yue, Qiu, Guohong +4 more·2026·arXiv

Abstract

LLM-based agents increasingly collaborate with users on long-horizon tasks, accumulating evidence, code, and drafts through extensive search, reasoning, and execution. As users inspect these results, they may supply missing information requirement completion, introduce new requirements requirement elicitation, or revise existing ones requirement shift. These changes often affect only part of the accumulated work, yet agents may carry forward obsolete information or turn local revisions into global rewrites. Existing approaches clarify current intent without determining how prior work should change, or reuse execution histories under a fixed objective. We address this gap by formulating dynamic-requirement collaboration as joint requirement tracking and local update. We introduce GitHarness, a pluggable Git-style framework that organizes requirement states and their corresponding harness work states into a branchable version history. A trainable Git Agent resolves requirement changes and selects a semantically compatible historical state. A unified version interface then restores that state and creates a new branch, enabling the underlying harness to exclude obsolete information, inherit compatible work, and focus execution on affected parts. The Git Agent is trained through interface-level black-box reinforcement learning, with downstream harnesses and task-execution models kept fixed. We also construct MTAgentBench, a verifier-preserving benchmark covering mathematical reasoning, text-to-SQL, agentic search, software engineering, and research synthesis. Experiments demonstrate strong task performance alongside effective requirement tracking, preservation of valid work, and efficient execution.

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 · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.36789

Cites

Statistics

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.

Authors
Yang, Z., Jiang, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, M., Zhang, Z., Song, Z., Fang, Y., Qiu, G., Li, R., Chu, X., Zhao, J., & Wang, Y.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7214923360
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
requirement elicitation, LLM agents, agentic search, software engineering tasks, evidence synthesis

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