CROCODIL: Cross-Model Code Editing with LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous tools for code generation and editing. However, development teams often use multiple LLM assistants. Different developers may prefer different models, and individual developers may switch between models across different coding sessions. Because of this, the edits any one model makes are frequently applied to foreign code originally generated by another model. These LLMs are often trained on different datasets, and as a result have different stylistic preferences. Do LLMs behave differently when they edit foreign code originally written by a different LLM with a different coding style? We find that models tend to make more, and often excessive, edits on foreign code. We introduce CROCODIL (Cross-model Code Editing with LLMs), a post-training framework for reducing excessive edits while preserving functional correctness. CROCODIL's similarity reward penalizes large changes, while its execution reward scores build and test success. We use the product of these two rewards to encourage the policy to decrease the edit size without decreasing the edit task success rate. CROCODIL is available at https://github.com/EngineeringSoftware/Crocodil.

WeSCE: A Benchmark for Measuring Security Drift in LLM-Driven Code Editing

In this work, we introduce WeSCE, a benchmark for quantifying security drift in code editing under weak-security constraints, where tasks specify only functional objectives without explicit security requirements. WeSCE consists of 400 executable programs derived from real-world code, covering feature addition, feature removal, bug fixing, and refactoring. To quantify security drift, we propose a continuous risk representation that aggregates heterogeneous vulnerability signals through a unified formulation, and define drift measures capturing changes in overall risk, worst-case severity, and vulnerability distribution under code transformations, providing a multi-scale view of security spanning average-case behavior to worst-case emphasis.

To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editing

Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.

Learning from 53.6K Real-World Developer Edits of AI-Generated Code

Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant. Manual code edits provide more realistic and granular information on editing behavior than Git commits, which only contain final successful code snippets. Yet, due to a lack of high-quality, realistic code editing data, LLMs are mostly trained on publicly available Git data (e.g., commits). To address this gap, we introduce DECODE (Developer Edits of Code Dataset), a dataset of 53.6K real-world in-IDE code edits of AI-generated code in Python, TypeScript, and JavaScript, sourced from 1K+ developers. First, we demonstrate the utility of DECODE for data analysis, obtaining insights on when, why, and how AI-generated code is edited. We find that most edits occur within the first 15 minutes after accepting an AI completion, resulting in the removal of AI completions in 31% of edit trajectories. Second, we use DECODE to benchmark the ability of LLMs to predict code edits. We find that finetuning on DECODE enables open-source 3B models to perform code edit prediction tasks significantly better than frontier LLMs. We then discuss implications of this work, emphasizing the necessity of developer-centric machine learning approaches for future AI programming assistants.

Line-Anchored Feedback Cuts Token Costs and Improves Correctness in AI Code Editing

Generated tokens are a direct driver of the cost, latency, and energy of generative AI (GAI) code editing. We show the format of feedback is a lever on all three. We compare two deliveries of the same requested changes: a holistic prompt (control) versus the structured, line-anchored export of FileMark (treatment). FileMark is a VSCodium extension for inline comments on any file. In a paired experiment line anchoring cut generated tokens by 22% (Claude Opus) and 58% (Claude Sonnet), reaching 24%-80% on files of 100 lines or more, with four of seven models generating significantly fewer tokens after multiple-testing correction. Correctness rose where models had headroom: +2.0 points pooled and +5 to +7 points for three of five local models. An exploratory experiment in which the harness, not the GAI model, applies function-level patches shows the correctness benefit grows further when the edit-application burden is lifted: local-model correctness on 100+ line files roughly triples under anchoring. Line-anchored feedback reduces what stronger models spend and improves what weaker models get right.

What Context Does a Coding Agent Actually Need to Act?

A modern coding agent can hold an entire repository in its context window. Most of its reading is wasted -- and the interesting question is not how much context an agent can use, but what it actually \emph{needs}. We study that question at the moment it matters most: when the agent must \emph{edit} code. Separating \emph{finding} the work site from \emph{acting} on it, we hold localization fixed with an oracle, vary only how the code is represented, and score context against real issue resolution on SWE-bench Verified. The answer is starkly minimal. The signal lives in the code being edited itself: natural-language summaries of it answer almost none of the behavioral questions that the source answers ($4/45$ vs.\ $27/45$, held-out repositories, independent judge), and the gap belongs to the representation, not the summarizer -- a frontier model's summaries score exactly as poorly as a 3B model's. The surrounding context hardly matters either: across every multi-file instance in Verified, under a protocol frozen before any data, rendering a file's remainder as UML skeletons and signatures resolves no more issues than deleting that remainder outright ($N{=}70$, exact McNemar $p{=}0.75$). That was our registered hypothesis, and it failed. Compressed context, meanwhile, matches whole files at a third of the tokens: a resolved issue costs $19$K context tokens, not $94$K. The instrument also yielded a finding the field should keep: temperature-0 API inference flips ${\sim}9\%$ of per-instance outcomes between byte-identical runs. That is a noise floor under every small effect reported on this benchmark, including ours. We release the instrument -- gold-validated environments, per-instance proof that every reference edit is expressible from every arm's context, deterministic patch construction, and pre-registered hypotheses whose nulls we publish.

To Diff or Not to Diff? Structure-Aware and Adaptive Output Formats for Efficient LLM-based Code Editing

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code editing, yet the prevalent full-code generation paradigm suffers from severe efficiency bottlenecks, posing challenges for interactive coding assistants that demand low latency and cost. Despite the predominant focus on scaling model capabilities, the edit format itself has been largely overlooked in model training. In this paper, we begin with a systematic study of conventional diff formats and reveal that fragile offsets and fragmented hunks make generation highly unnatural for LLMs. To address it, we introduce BlockDiff and FuncDiff, two structure-aware diff formats that represent changes as block-level rewrites of syntactically coherent units such as control structures and functions. Furthermore, we propose AdaEdit, a general adaptive edit strategy that trains LLMs to dynamically choose the most token-efficient format between a given diff format and full code. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AdaEdit paired with structure-aware diff formats consistently matches the accuracy of full-code generation, while reducing both latency and cost by over 30% on long-code editing tasks.

SAFEdit: Does Multi-Agent Decomposition Resolve the Reliability Challenges of Instructed Code Editing?

Instructed code editing is a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs). On the EditBench benchmark, 39 of 40 evaluated models obtain a task success rate (TSR) below 60 percent, highlighting a gap between general code generation and the ability to perform instruction-driven editing under executable test constraints. To address this, we propose SAFEdit, a multi-agent framework for instructed code editing that decomposes the editing process into specialized roles to improve reliability and reduce unintended code changes. A Planner Agent produces an explicit, visibility-aware edit plan, an Editor Agent applies minimal, literal code modifications, and a Verifier Agent executes real test runs. When tests fail, SAFEdit uses a Failure Abstraction Layer (FAL) to transform raw test logs into structured diagnostic feedback, which is fed back to the Editor to support iterative refinement. We compare SAFEdit against both prior single-model results reported for EditBench and an implemented ReAct single-agent baseline under the same evaluation conditions. We used EditBench to evaluate SAFEdit on 445 code editing instances in five languages (English, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian) under varying spatial context variants. SAFEdit achieved 68.6 percent TSR, outperforming the single-model baseline by 3.8 percentage points and the ReAct single-agent baseline by 8.6 percentage points. The iterative refinement loop was found to contribute 17.4 percentage points to SAFEdit's overall success rate. SAFEdit's automated error analysis further indicates a reduction in instruction-level hallucinations compared to single-agent approaches, providing an additional framework component for interpreting failures beyond pass or fail outcomes.