NL2Repo-Bench
From one natural-language requirements document and an empty workspace, agent builds an installable Python library. Scored by original project's test pass rate.
104 tasks. Labs add anti-cheat blocks on pip download/git clone of the target repo to stop reward hacking.
- Released
- December 2025
- Kind
- Building whole projects
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Code
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 #22 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- November 2026
- Last model added
- November 2026
In the authors’ words
Recent advances in coding agents suggest rapid progress toward autonomous software development, yet existing benchmarks fail to rigorously evaluate the long-horizon capabilities required to build complete software systems. Most prior evaluations focus on localized code generation, scaffolded completion, or short-term repair tasks, leaving open the question of whether agents can sustain coherent reasoning, planning, and execution over the extended horizons demanded by real-world repository construction. To address this gap, we present NL2Repo Bench, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the long-horizon repository generation ability of coding agents. Given only a single natural-language requirements document and an empty workspace, agents must autonomously design the architecture, manage dependencies, implement multi-module logic, and produce a fully installable Python library. Our experiments across state-of-the-art open- and closed-source models reveal that long-horizon repository generation remains largely unsolved: even the strongest agents achieve below 40% average test pass rates and rarely complete an entire repository correctly. Detailed analysis uncovers fundamental long-horizon failure modes, including premature termination, loss of global coherence, fragile cross-file dependencies, and inadequate planning over hundreds of interaction steps. NL2Repo Bench establishes a rigorous, verifiable testbed for measuring sustained agentic competence and highlights long-horizon reasoning as a central bottleneck for the next generation of autonomous coding agents.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads with 68.2%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 68.2
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- 65.4
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 64.9
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
- 61.5
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- 61.2
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- 60.5
LongCat-2.5
- 58.9
Tencent Hy4 preview
- 58.0 GLM-5.3
- 57.7
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp
- 56.3 GLM-5.3-Flash
- 55.9
Qwen 3.8 Max
- 54.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- 48.9 GLM-5.2
- 48.9
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
- 48.1
Qwen3.8 Flash
- 47.2
Qwen3.7-Max
- 47.0
Seed2.1 Pro
- 45.6
Tencent Hy3
- 42.9
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview)
- 42.7 GLM-5.1
- 42.3
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 42.1
MiniMax-M3
- 41.1
Qwen3.7-Plus
- 39.8
MiniMax-M2.7
- 37.9
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 36.2
Qwen3.6 27B
- 29.4
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 28.7
Seed2.0 Lite (0428)
- 27.9
Seed2.0 Pro
- 26.6
MiniMax-M2.5
- 1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 68.2%
- 2
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4%
- 3
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 64.9%
- 4
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 61.5%
- 5
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 61.2%
- 6
LongCat-2.5 60.5%
- 7
Tencent Hy4 preview 58.9%
- 8 GLM-5.3 58%
- 9
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp 57.7%
- 10 GLM-5.3-Flash 56.3%
- 11
Qwen 3.8 Max 55.9%
- 12
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 54.2%
- 13 GLM-5.2 48.9%
- 14
Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash 48.9%
- 15
Qwen3.8 Flash 48.1%
- 16
Qwen3.7-Max 47.2%
- 17
Seed2.1 Pro 47%
- 18
Tencent Hy3 45.6%
- 19
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 42.9%
- 20 GLM-5.1 42.7%
- 21
Qwen 3.8 27B 42.3%
- 22
MiniMax-M3 42.1%
- 23
Qwen3.7-Plus 41.1%
- 24
MiniMax-M2.7 39.8%
- 25
Qwen 3.6 Plus 37.9%
- 26
Qwen3.6 27B 36.2%
- 27
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 29.4%
- 28
Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 28.7%
- 29
Seed2.0 Pro 27.9%
- 30
MiniMax-M2.5 26.6%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 68.2% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 65.4% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 64.9% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 61.5% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 61.2% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 60.5% | Nov 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 58.9% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | GLM-5.3 | 58% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | | 57.7% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | GLM-5.3-Flash | 56.3% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | | 55.9% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | | 54.2% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | GLM-5.2 | 48.9% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 14 | | 48.9% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 15 | | 48.1% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 16 | | 47.2% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 17 | | 47% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 18 | | 45.6% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 19 | | 42.9% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 20 | GLM-5.1 | 42.7% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 21 | | 42.3% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 22 | | 42.1% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 23 | | 41.1% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 24 | | 39.8% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 25 | | 37.9% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 26 | | 36.2% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 27 | | 29.4% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 28 | | 28.7% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 29 | | 27.9% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 30 | | 26.6% | May 2026 | Lab model card |
12 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in December 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Labs’ model cards
7 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2026 | 60.5 | NL2Repo | |
| Oct 19, 2026 | 61.2 | NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 68.2 | NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Sep 18, 2026 | 48.9 | NL2Repo-Bench (Claude Code) | |
| Sep 10, 2026 | 64 | NL2Repo-Bench (Score) | |
| Sep 2, 2026 | 64.9 | Repository-level code generation, NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Aug 28, 2026 | 58.9 | NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Aug 26, 2026 | 48.1 | Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-Bench (Claude Code) | |
| Aug 26, 2026 | GLM-5.3-Flash | 56.3 | NL2Repo |
| Aug 21, 2026 | 57.7 | NL2Repo | |
| Aug 14, 2026 | 42.3 | Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Aug 14, 2026 | GLM-5.3 | 58 | NL2Repo |
| Aug 13, 2026 | 61.5 | NL2Repo | |
| Aug 3, 2026 | 55.9 | NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Jul 31, 2026 | 54.2 | NL2Repo | |
| Jul 2, 2026 | 45.6 | NL2repo | |
| Jun 23, 2026 | 47 | NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Jun 16, 2026 | GLM-5.2 | 48.9 | NL2Repo |
| Jun 1, 2026 | 41.1 | NL2repo | |
| Jun 1, 2026 | 42.1 | nl2repo | |
| May 20, 2026 | 47.2 | NL2repo | |
| Apr 28, 2026 | 28.7 | NL2Repo-Bench | |
| Apr 22, 2026 | 36.2 | NL2Repo | |
| Apr 20, 2026 | 42.9 | NL2Repo Long-Horizon Coding | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 29.4 | NL2Repo | |
| Apr 7, 2026 | GLM-5.1 | 42.7 | NL2Repo |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 37.9 | NL2Repo | |
| Mar 18, 2026 | 39.8 | NL2Repo (text) |
6 system cards report it, from 4 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2026 | | 48.9 | NL2Repo-Bench, Claude Code (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Sep 10, 2026 | | 65.4 | NL2Repo-Bench (Score) (Table 3) | Capabilities |
| Jun 23, 2026 | | 47 | NL2Repo-Bench (Table 5) | Capabilities |
| May 26, 2026 | | 39.8 | NL2Repo, Claude Code scaffold, avg of 4 trials (paper calls NL2Repo internal) (Table 4) | Capabilities |
| May 26, 2026 | | 26.6 | NL2Repo, Claude Code scaffold, avg of 4 trials (paper calls NL2Repo internal) (Table 4) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 27.9 | NL2Repo-Bench 27.9, NL2Repo (Pass@1) 3.0 (Table 13) | Capabilities |
One logged change that moves scores
Changes by the maintainers, so a score from before a change may not compare with one from after it. Newest first, each with the maintainers' own source. The list may be incomplete. What we log.
- Metric changed May 13th, 2026
The maintainers revised test-count denominators for 34 tasks. The harness divides passed tests by these counts, so unchanged test outcomes can produce different success rates. Source
More in Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471