Evaluates the ability of LLM-based agents to autonomously resolve software engineering issues by modifying code in real-world repositories. It probes environment setup, code generation, and test execution capabilities across multiple programming languages. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SWE-rebench V2, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports pass@1.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Swe Rebench V2 Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-swe-rebench-v2-eval)
---
name: swe-rebench-v2-eval
description: Evaluates the ability of LLM-based agents to autonomously resolve software engineering issues by modifying code in real-world repositories. It probes environment setup, code generation, and test execution capabilities across multiple programming languages. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SWE-rebench V2, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports pass@1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.23866
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# swe-rebench-v2-eval
> SWE-rebench V2: Language-Agnostic SWE Task Collection at Scale — Badertdinov et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.23866, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of LLM-based agents to autonomously resolve software engineering issues by modifying code in real-world repositories. It probes environment setup, code generation, and test execution capabilities across multiple programming languages.
## Datasets
- **SWE-rebench V2** — total 32000; splits: test (300)
## Metrics
- `pass@1` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Fraction of tasks where at least one out of k attempts successfully passes the test suite.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Repository codebase, issue description, and test suite provided in an interactive shell environment with base dependencies installed.
**Output**: Modified source code files and/or shell commands to resolve the issue. Success is determined by running the provided test suite.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_pass_at_k(successes_per_task, k):
# successes_per_task: list of lists of booleans (k attempts per task)
passed = [any(attempts) for attempts in successes_per_task]
return sum(passed) / len(passed)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Test suite coupling: models may correctly fix the target issue but fail due to regressions in unrelated code paths caught by the test suite.
- Implicit naming requirements: tests often expect specific implementation details not specified in the problem statement.
- External dependencies: problem statements may reference inaccessible URLs or auth-walled resources, causing agent failure.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table 6: Pass rates (%) by model and programming language. | Model | Py | JS | Go | Rust | Scala | pass@1 | pass@3 |
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{badertdinov2026swe_rebench_v2,
title={SWE-rebench V2: Language-Agnostic SWE Task Collection at Scale},
author={Badertdinov et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.23866}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.23866