SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks

Software development is iterative, yet agentic coding benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate single-shot solutions against complete specifications. Code can pass the test suite but become progressively harder to extend. Recent iterative benchmarks attempt to close this gap, but constrain the agent's design decisions too tightly to faithfully measure how code quality shapes future extensions. We introduce SlopCodeBench, a language-agnostic benchmark comprising 20 problems and 93 checkpoints, in which agents repeatedly extend their own prior solutions under evolving specifications that force architectural decisions without prescribing internal structure. We track two trajectory-level quality signals: verbosity, the fraction of redundant or duplicated code, and structural erosion, the share of complexity mass concentrated in high-complexity functions. No agent solves any problem end-to-end across 11 models; the highest checkpoint solve rate is 17.2%. Quality degrades steadily: erosion rises in 80% of trajectories and verbosity in 89.8%. Against 48 open-source Python repositories, agent code is 2.2x more verbose and markedly more eroded. Tracking 20 of those repositories over time shows that human code stays flat, while agent code deteriorates with each iteration. A prompt-intervention study shows that initial quality can be improved, but it does not halt degradation. These results demonstrate that pass-rate benchmarks systematically undermeasure extension robustness, and that current agents lack the design discipline iterative software development demands.

Weight Updates as Activation Shifts: A Principled Framework for Steering

Activation steering promises to be an extremely parameter-efficient form of adaptation, but its effectiveness depends on critical design choices -- such as intervention location and parameterization -- that currently rely on empirical heuristics rather than a principled foundation. We establish a first-order equivalence between activation-space interventions and weight-space updates, deriving the conditions under which activation steering can replicate fine-tuning behavior. This equivalence yields a principled framework for steering design and identifies the post-block output as a theoretically-backed and highly expressive intervention site. We further explain why certain intervention locations outperform others and show that weight updates and activation updates play distinct, complementary functional roles. This analysis motivates a new approach -- joint adaptation -- that trains in both spaces simultaneously. Our post-block steering achieves accuracy within 0.2%-0.9%$ of full-parameter tuning, on average across tasks and models, while training only 0.04% of model parameters. It consistently outperforms prior activation steering methods such as ReFT and PEFT approaches including LoRA, while using significantly fewer parameters. Finally, we show that joint adaptation often surpasses the performance ceilings of weight and activation updates in isolation, introducing a new paradigm for efficient model adaptation.