PreprintCited by 0Software Engineering ResearchAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Spine: Compiling Subtask Trees into Structured Context for Long-Horizon Coding Agents

Open access
Xiang, Jiahong, Chen, Kunqiu, Zhang, Lingming, Zhang, Yuqun·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Long-horizon coding tasks contain nested subtasks. Typically, agents record interactions sequentially into a growing history, causing context inflation and performance degradation. Compressing or trimming the history without explicit subtask boundaries can discard information needed by unfinished subtasks. Conversely, recursive subagent delegation isolates completed subtasks through child agents by assigning every subtask boundary to delegation, which conflates subtask granularity with executing agent choice, adding execution and coordination overhead. We introduce Spine, an interface and runtime that align model context with subtask nesting and completion. An agent declares explicit subtask boundaries through work scopes, allowing the same agent to execute nested subtasks inline while reserving delegation for independent parallel tasks. The runtime organizes execution in SpineTree, a persistent tree recording subtask relations, local interactions, completion states, and returned results. Before each model call, it compiles the tree into model context just in time, retaining unfinished subtasks' interactions and replacing completed subtasks' details with their results, while preserving prefix-cache reuse. We integrate Spine into Codex to build SpineCodex. With GPT-5.6 Sol, compared with native Codex, SpineCodex improves SWE-Milestone Score by 11.8% while reducing total cost by 32.4%, improves the average ProgramBench test-pass rate by 17.3%, and improves Mean@5 on eight of the ten evaluated FrontierSWE tasks. On SWE-Milestone, it also achieves a comparable Score to Recursive Subagent at 73.7% lower total cost. We also integrate Spine into Pi through a reusable software package: with Gemini 3.8 Flash and Qwen 3.8 27B, it improves SWE-Milestone Score by 9.5-17.5% and the average ProgramBench test-pass rate by 4.3-8.7% compared with native Pi.

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.2610.37224

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
Xiang, J., Chen, K., Zhang, L., & Zhang, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7224097136
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 › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
codices, software engineering tasks, LLM agents

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