Real-SWE Benchmark — Specific Labs

September 2026Introducing Real-SWEBenchmarking frontier AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases.ResultsAnalysisEffortSetup01IntroductionToday we are releasing Real-SWE, a benchmark that evaluates frontier AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases. Each task comes from a private production codebase that we licensed from a real-world company. These are problems their engineers work on, with all the context and complexity that comes with an existing product.Private codebases. Agents must navigate proprietary systems whose code and solutions aren’t available on the public internet.Work with business consequences. Getting billing right, calculating taxes, migrating customers. Changes that affect how a business runs, often across multiple services.Company-specific complexity. Every company has its own rules and ways of writing code. Agents have to understand those conventions and make changes that work with what’s already there.Can a coding agent actually do the work of a software engineer in the real world?1Fable 5.1Claude CodeResolution rate: 38.8%2GPT-6 AstraCodex CLIResolution rate: 33.8%3Gemini 3.8 FlashGemini CLIResolution rate: 31.2%4GLM 5.3Claude CodeResolution rate: 28.8%=5Grok 4.6Grok BuildResolution rate: 23.8%=5Muse Spark 1.3Muse CodeResolution rate: 23.8%7Kimi K3Kimi CodeResolution rate: 18.8%8GPT-5.6 SolCodex CLIResolution rate: 16.2%#ModelHarnessResolution rate1Fable 5.1Claude Code38.8%2GPT-6 AstraCodex CLI33.8%3Gemini 3.8 FlashGemini CLI31.2%4GLM 5.3Claude Code28.8%=5Grok 4.6Grok Build23.8%=5Muse Spark 1.3Muse Code23.8%7Kimi K3Kimi Code18.8%8GPT-5.6 SolCodex CLI16.2%Resolution rate is equivalent to pass@1, averaged over eight independent runs per task. 95% confidence intervals are shown.Expert-generated or synthetic tasks can be well designed, but they aren’t the verbatim, actual tasks that engineers in real companies need to do. Our tasks differ on two axes: the underlying coding artifact and specificity of the instruction. Both add complexities that challenge today’s frontier models.We use native harnesses to reflect how enterprise engineers work in practice, evaluating model-and-harness combinations rather than models in isolation.Real company tasks require company-specific contextCorrect billing depends on business rules and external servicesFix invoice billing so each business charges the right tax and exempt customers aren't taxed.View full instructionHide full instructionBilling reopens on Monday and every invoice this service issues is coming out untaxed. Each business on the platform settles its tax a different way: some maintain a rate themselves, some want each invoice priced against the buyer's destination by our tax authority provider, and some collect nothing at all, while a customer we hold an exemption for is charged nothing whichever way its business is configured. Pricing a destination means going to the authority with both addresses, the priced lines and the product category that business sells under, on the sandbox or the production authority according to the account the business is on; an address the authority refuses must be reported without stopping the invoice. The rate, the tax and the gross belong on the issued invoice, and once an invoice is settled the sale is filed back to the authority under that invoice's number so the returns reconcile. Invoices between European parties show both sides' VAT registrations. The authority and ledger are available at TAX_JAR_URL, PROD_TAX_JAR_URL and INFLUX_URL.Services in the sandboxTaxJar sandboxTaxJar productionInfluxDB ledgerNestJS serviceTypeScriptAgents work across code, infrastructure, and business toolsTools and services across Real-SWE task environments. Each task exposes only the services its workflow needs.AWS emulatorDockerKubernetesGitHubLinear MCPPostgreSQLMySQLMongoDBGelRedisGoPythonNode.jsVitestSlackIntercomGoogle DriveEmailClickUpCodebase SelectionWe selected codebases through a rigorous screening process, focusing on real companies with substantial usage, strong engineering teams, and demanding production workloads. The sample tasks analyzed below come from these codebases, including:A Luma/Partiful competitor with 200K+ users and a top 100 App Store rankingA consumer fintech platform processing 100K+ bank statementsEnterprise AI sales platforms supporting complex business workflowsWe prioritize code written to meet an actual user or business need over code written solely to create a benchmark task. Production engineering requires understanding existing architecture, preserving behavior that users rely on, and making changes within real operational constraints.Brief instructions can require changes across many filesOur tasks describe the change needed, leaving agents to discover implementation details in the codebase and surrounding tools. Any behavior required by the verifier must be stated or reasonably discoverable. This leads to our prompts being slightly underspecified, about par with DeepSWE and Terminal Bench, but specific enough to not omit instructions.The work is cross-functional and complex: a single change can span multiple parts of the application. Agents must understand existing business logic and company coding patterns while keeping the surrounding system working.Prompt length · medianA typical Real-SWE instruction is 1,742 characters.FrontierCode2,056 charsDeepSWE1,975 charsTerminal-Bench 31,584 charsFrontierSWE v2992 charsReal-SWE1,742 charsFiles edited by the reference solution · median11 files in Real-SWE, compared with 6 in FrontierCode and DeepSWE.FrontierCode6DeepSWE6Real-SWE11All figures are medians. FrontierCode and DeepSWE use Cognition's published comparison; FrontierCode includes task descriptions and codebase guidelines. We measured instruction files from Terminal-Bench 3's 74 tasks, FrontierSWE v2's 34 tasks, and Real-SWE's eight repository-backed sample tasks. Character counts are rounded to the nearest whole character. No comparable files-edited figure is included for Terminal-Bench 3 or FrontierSWE v2.Models fail even in short rollouts.71.4% of rollouts under 10 minutes failed, compared with 73.4% of longer rollouts.Triaging multiple systems and understanding requirements in codebases riddled with existing business logic and coding patterns is difficult.Under 10 minUnder 10 min: 70 failed (71.4%) and 28 passed (28.6%), out of 98 rollouts.70/98 failed10 min or longer10 min or longer: 398 failed (73.4%) and 144 passed (26.6%), out of 542 rollouts.398/542 failedFailedPassedEvery task is inspired or lifted verbatim from a private, real-world codebase. We find these types of tasks super interesting for three reasons:Tasks on private codebases are natively out of distribution. These types of coding tasks are not available anywhere on the internet and are unlikely to have ever been trained on by any other ai model. 99% of tokens in real-world enterprises are hidden away from the frontier models.These tasks are economically viable work. Each task here has a direct relationship to spend and was assigned to an engineer earning a salary. Most benchmarks test interesting, experimental capabilities that are often unlikely to be widespread in the real-world.Company-specific engineering patterns matter. Does AI code match the bar of a real-world enterprise? Our results show us that we're far from that reality. Many enterprises care about code standards and patterns. We've found that today's models are weaker at understanding company coding patterns and frequently miss requirements or don't verify their assumptions.02AnalysisHere's an analysis of a small sample of tasks from our benchmark.