Organizations often develop and maintain portfolios of related applications: independently deployable codebases that share substantial domain logic, interface patterns, or operational conventions. As LLM coding agents are increasingly used to generate and maintain such software, a naive application-by-application workflow duplicates shared logic across codebases and allows prolonged agentic maintenance to accumulate verbosity, dead code, and structural erosion. We introduce the Super Library Agent problem, where an agent sequentially generates a portfolio of N related applications while maintaining a shared Super Library of reusable cross-application components. A minimal sequential scaffold can in principle extract shared code and migrate applications to the evolving library, but in practice suffers from low extraction recall and fragile dependency migration. We address these failures with candidate-guided extraction over code chunk summaries, pre-extraction codebase consolidation, and context-aware migration using extraction traces and call-graph information. Across WebGen-Bench and PaperBench, our method preserves application functionality while significantly reducing redundancy and token footprint (verbosity, token length) over zero-shot, and avoiding the structural erosion introduced by naive library construction, with additional reductions in LOC and MDL. Our code is available at https://github.com/sbigstar0310/super-library-agent.

This paper presents automatic evaluation systems for assessing the pedagogical capabilities of LLM-based AI tutors. Drawing from a shared task, our systems specifically target four key dimensions of tutor responses: Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Providing Guidance, and Actionability. These dimensions capture the educational quality of responses from multiple perspectives, including the ability to detect student mistakes, accurately identify error locations, provide effective instructional guidance, and offer actionable feedback. We propose GPT-4.1-based automatic evaluation systems, leveraging their strong capabilities in comprehending diverse linguistic expressions and complex conversational contexts to address the detailed evaluation criteria across these dimensions. Our systems were quantitatively evaluated based on the official criteria of each track. In the Mistake Location track, our evaluation systems achieved an Exact macro F1 score of 58.80% (ranked in the top 3), and in the Providing Guidance track, they achieved 56.06% (ranked in the top 5). While the systems showed mid-range performance in the remaining tracks, the overall results demonstrate that our proposed automatic evaluation systems can effectively assess the quality of tutor responses, highlighting their potential for evaluating AI tutor effectiveness.