cloud platform developers

Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used for software engineering tasks, yet their performance is not determined by the base model alone. The agent harness substantially shapes how SE agents interact with repositories, execute actions, and validate solutions. However, the role of harness design remains insufficiently understood, especially across different models, tasks, and harness components. In this paper, we present a systematic empirical study of harness effects in SE agents. We first evaluate two representative harnesses, mini-SWE-agent and OpenCode, with ten models from two prominent open-weight model families, Qwen and DeepSeek, on three benchmarks: SWE-bench Pro, ProgramBench, and GitTaskBench. We then construct NanoHarness, a lightweight modular harness built on top of mini-SWE-agent, and use it to analyze five representative harness components: tool registry, context compression, explicit planning, subagents, and lazy skills. Experimental results show that harness effectiveness depends jointly on model capability and task type. Complex harnesses provide diminishing marginal gains on SWE-style issue repair as model capability improves, but can benefit stronger models on more complex and open-ended repository-level tasks. Component-level analysis on ProgramBench further shows that structured tool use and task-specific subagents provide the most stable improvements, while context compression and general subagents can hurt repository-generation performance. When combined, NanoHarness improves over mini-SWE-agent by 7.37 and 6.21 percentage points on Qwen3.7-Max and DeepSeek-V4-Pro, respectively, recovering most of the gains of product-level harnesses. These findings highlight harness design as a first-class factor in SE-agent performance and provide insights for building more effective and efficient coding agents.

Abstract: Graph neural networks dominate recent work on microservice root-cause analysis, yet recent results question whether the graph contributes. Those results compare whole pipelines, so when a flat model wins one cannot tell whether structure is useless or redundant. We run the comparison they imply on RCAEval: three learned arms with identical features, optimiser, validation split, early-stopping rule and scoring head, in which a single term separates the graph arms. Across two RCAEval benchmarks, two topology sources and four regimes we find no reliable graph-specific effect: in-distribution the graph model leads the conventional flat model by 0.003 Avg@5 (p = 0.844, n = 6 disjoint folds). Auditing the pipeline surfaced two benchmark properties that condition any result on it. RCAEval injects faults into only five services per system while exposing 12 to 70 in telemetry, and the headline metric is Avg@5: a ranker reading no telemetry at all places the true culprit in the top five on 99.7 percent of held-out incidents, scoring Avg@5 0.488. That prior, not the uniform-random 0.137, is the honest in-distribution floor, and it collapses to 0.192 across systems. The second property is a non-uniform column schema that silently zeroes telemetry for most RE1 cases. We reproduce a published baseline, BARO, RCAEval's own reference implementation; on the one system with a clean schema it reaches similar aggregate accuracy to our heuristic, within 0.004, under a different scoring rule. The audit motivated a new model. PSC-GRCA separates a candidate score into a system prior, telemetry evidence and a centred graph residual, and reaches mean Avg@5 0.915 against 0.864 for the flat baseline, while its ablations locate most of the gain in the prior term rather than the graph. We close with a twelve-item checklist for graph-versus-flat ablation studies, distilled from sixty-two recorded defects.