ContextBench
Coding agents resolve 1,136 issues from 66 repositories in eight programming languages, and the benchmark checks which code they look at along the way. Each task has human-annotated gold context, and the tracker scores context recall, precision and efficiency over the agent's trajectory. It adds these process measures to the usual issue-resolution result.
Not related to the Context Arena long-context board at contextbench.ai. The paper tested four models and five agent frameworks. About 150 GitHub stars.
- Made by
- Nanjing University and University College London
- Released
- February 2026
- Kind
- Fixing real repositories
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Qwen3.7-Max #49 on the capability index
- Last model added
- May 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
LLM-based coding agents have shown strong performance on automated issue resolution benchmarks, yet existing evaluations largely focus on final task success, providing limited insight into how agents retrieve and use code context during problem solving. We introduce ContextBench, a process-oriented evaluation of context retrieval in coding agents. ContextBench consists of 1,136 issue-resolution tasks from 66 repositories across eight programming languages, each augmented with human-annotated gold contexts. We further implement an automated evaluation framework that tracks agent trajectories and measures context recall, precision, and efficiency throughout issue resolution. Using ContextBench, we evaluate four frontier LLMs and five coding agents. Our results show that sophisticated agent scaffolding yields only marginal gains in context retrieval ("The Bitter Lesson" of coding agents), LLMs consistently favor recall over precision, and substantial gaps exist between explored and utilized context. ContextBench augments existing end-to-end benchmarks with intermediate gold-context metrics that unbox the issue-resolution process. These contexts offer valuable intermediate signals for guiding LLM reasoning in software tasks.
CodeNib (Haiku5.5 search pair + Opus5.5 mini SWE-agent) tops the leaderboard with 77.9%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is GPT-5, at 60.6%.
The newest model with a score here came out in May 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1 CodeNib (Haiku5.5 search pair + Opus5.5 mini SWE-agent) 77.9%
- 2 GPT-5 60.6%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 4.5 58.8%
- 4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 41.1%
- 5
Devstral 2 40.4%
- 6 Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) 31.3%
- 7
MiniMax-M2.5 23.6%
- 8 GLM-5.1 23.6%
- 9
Qwen3.7-Max 18.5%
- 10
Qwen2.5-32B 7.60%
- 11
Qwen3-8B 4.80%
Source: Official ContextBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CodeNib (Haiku5.5 search pair + Opus5.5 mini SWE-agent) | 77.9% | CodeNib | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5 | 60.6% | mini SWE-agent | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 58.8% | mini SWE-agent | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 41.1% | openJiuwen-JiuwenSwarm | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 40.4% | mini SWE-agent | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 31.3% | mini SWE-agent | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 23.6% | mini SWE-agent | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | GLM-5.1 | 23.6% | mini SWE-agent | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 18.5% | mini SWE-agent | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 7.60% | mini SWE-agent | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 4.80% | mini SWE-agent | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official ContextBench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official ContextBench leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
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