Papers for
automated code generation tool developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Code skill server boosts code generation quality across models
Code Skill Server: A Large-Scale Search Engine for Code Generation Skills
Abstract: Agent skills have proven to be an effective technique for improving agent ability on specific tasks, including software engineering, natural science, and mathematics. During such a process, using agent skills often involves manually discovering and organizing skills from heterogeneous sources, while existing skill retrieval methods mainly focus on selecting relevant skills from established skill libraries. However, with the rapidly increasing number and variety of reusable agent skills, manually searching for relevant skills across heterogeneous sources is becoming impractical at scale. In this paper, we introduce the Code Skill Server (CSS), a large-scale search engine for finding the most useful code generation skills for a target task. CSS consists of a skill server that incrementally collects and indexes publicly available code generation skills from multiple sources, with 993 skills included in the corpus used in this work. Extensive experiments across different retrieval methods and code generation benchmarks show that the best CSS configuration improves Pass@1 by up to 13.91% and consistently improves all evaluated models by at least 4.21% in the cross-model evaluation. These results demonstrate that CSS can effectively search for and serve relevant skills, improving code generation quality and enhancing models' code generation capabilities. Code and the CSS-993 corpus are available at {https://github.com/haoyuli-sdu/CodeSkillServer}.
Large language models often silently fail to code trading strategies correctly
MintEval: Do LLMs Implement the Trading Strategy You Asked For? A Behavioural-Equivalence Benchmark for Natural-Language-to-Strategy Code
Abstract: Large language models are moving from producing trading signals to writing the code that executes them. The failure mode of the second role is silent: generated code runs, a backtest plots, yet the risk logic that the trader described is not the logic being executed. Existing code benchmarks test functional correctness on unit tests and finance benchmarks test forecasting; neither measures whether an implementation behaves like the strategy that was asked for. We introduce MintEval, a benchmark in which reference strategies are generated programmatically from a library of composable building blocks, back-translated into colloquial trader instructions, and re-implemented by the model under test. Generated and reference programs are executed bar by bar on identical market data and frictions, and compared on their actions rather than on code similarity or profit: alpha is differenced away. MintEval v0 contains 800 tasks on BTCUSDT 15-minute data, stratified by an execution-measured state-span complexity tau that is decoupled from description length. Low-cost models reach a mean ActionMatch of at most 0.544 and reproduce at most 0.087 of tasks exactly; on a stratified subset of 200 tasks a frontier model (Claude Opus 5.5) reaches 0.889 and reproduces 0.575 exactly, yet still fails silently on 0.275 of tasks. Given a menu of building blocks, models identify the strategy almost perfectly, yet 79.2% of the implementations whose specification was read correctly diverge on more than 10% of active bars. The LLM judge of a recent strategy-generation benchmark, applied verbatim, accepts every one of these silent failures.