ViBench 2.0: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Software Building
arXiv:2611.05620v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: On Replit, our agentic engineering platform, users now build entire products without writing code, through successive feature requests to an agent. Yet existing coding benchmarks evaluate single, fully specified tasks, and many are near saturation. We introduce ViBench 2.0, a benchmark for long-horizon software building that we use to select our platform's models. Its 17 full-stack web products, modeled on widely used software, grow over 241 featur
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.05620. Source account: arXiv:2611.05620v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: On Replit, our agentic engineering platform, users now build entire products without writing code, through successive feature requests to an agent. Yet existing coding benchmarks evaluate single, fully specified tasks, and many are near saturation. We introduce ViBench 2.0, a benchmark for long-horizon software building that we use to select our platform's models. Its 17 full-stack web products, modeled on widely used software, grow over 241 featur
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Cognitive Bias Signatures in Search-Equipped LLM Agents: A Stage-Resolved Analysis” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026); “Prospective Memory for Proactive LLM Agents” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.