Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been that commit messages describe human intent in natural language, and patches to code describe the changes that implement that intent. However, much of the previously collected data is noisy: commit messages are terse, human-written commits commingle several unrelated edits, and many historical commits come from simple, rule-based bots.

The recent adoption of software engineering agents changes this landscape. Code changes co-authored by humans and agents are often accompanied by substantially more explicit natural-language descriptions of intent and rationale. Moreover, changes in public repositories may have passed through human selection and review, and we treat this potential human filtering as an indirect signal of data quality.

We present AgentPack, a corpus of 1.8M code edits co-authored by Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Cursor Agent across public GitHub projects up to early October 2025. We describe the identification and curation pipeline, quantify adoption trends of these agents, and analyze the structural properties of the edits. Finally, we show that models fine-tuned on AgentPack outperform models trained on prior human-only commit corpora, highlighting the potential of using public data from software engineering agents to train future code-editing models.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, “PhD-level” knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark with 613 problems based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models; however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models’ mistakes are easy to spot. As LLMs are more widely deployed in society, we believe it is useful to develop benchmarks for frontier models that humans can understand without the need for deep domain expertise.Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models on our benchmark, despite being on par with other models when tested on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with “I give up” before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably “uncertain” in its output and in rare cases, it does not “finish thinking,” which suggests the need for techniques to “wrap up” before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.