{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","slug":"an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","name":"\"An open source Devin getting 12.29% on 100% of the SWE Bench test set vs Devin's 13.84% on 25% of the test set!\"","type":"agent","url":"https://x.com/danielhanchen/status/1775120334305607781","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","categories":["productivity"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"unknown","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"inactive","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_0","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.autonomous.software.engineering.task.execution","name":"autonomous-software-engineering-task-execution","description":"Executes end-to-end software engineering tasks (bug fixes, feature implementation, test generation) by decomposing them into sub-tasks and orchestrating tool interactions through a specialized terminal interface. The agent uses a ReAct-style loop to interleave reasoning, tool invocation, and observation parsing, maintaining context across multiple file edits and command executions without human intervention.","intents":["I need an AI agent to automatically fix bugs in my codebase without manual code review","I want to benchmark autonomous code generation against human developer performance","I need to automate repetitive software engineering tasks like test generation or documentation updates"],"best_for":["research teams evaluating autonomous coding agents","developers building LLM-based CI/CD automation","organizations benchmarking code generation capabilities"],"limitations":["Performance on SWE Bench is 12.29% (real-world success rate is low for complex tasks)","Requires full repository context and may struggle with large codebases exceeding context windows","No built-in handling for interactive debugging or runtime error recovery beyond terminal output parsing","Limited to tasks expressible through terminal commands and file system operations"],"requires":["Python 3.8+","Access to LLM API (model backbone not specified in artifact)","Git repository with standard structure","Unix-like terminal environment or compatible shell"],"input_types":["natural language task description","repository code and file structure","test specifications or bug reports"],"output_types":["code patches and commits","modified files","test results and logs","terminal command execution traces"],"categories":["automation-workflow","code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.specialized.terminal.interaction.with.structured.feedback","name":"specialized-terminal-interaction-with-structured-feedback","description":"Provides a custom terminal abstraction that intercepts and structures shell command outputs, enabling the agent to parse execution results with higher precision than raw stdout/stderr. Commands return structured JSON or formatted text responses that include exit codes, parsed output, and error context, allowing the agent's reasoning loop to make decisions based on semantically meaningful feedback rather than unstructured text.","intents":["I want my agent to reliably parse command outputs and detect failures without regex fragility","I need the agent to understand file system state changes after each command","I want to log and replay agent-terminal interactions for debugging and analysis"],"best_for":["developers building agents that need reliable shell command feedback","research teams studying agent-environment interaction patterns","teams implementing reproducible autonomous workflows"],"limitations":["Specialized terminal abstraction adds latency (~50-200ms per command) compared to direct shell execution","Requires custom terminal wrapper implementation; not compatible with arbitrary shell environments","Output parsing may fail for non-standard command outputs or interactive prompts","Limited to commands that produce text output; binary data handling not documented"],"requires":["Custom terminal wrapper implementation (provided by SWE-agent framework)","Unix-like shell environment","Python subprocess or equivalent for terminal spawning"],"input_types":["shell commands (bash, python, git, etc.)","file paths and arguments"],"output_types":["structured command results (JSON or formatted text)","exit codes and error messages","file system state snapshots"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_2","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.multi.file.codebase.aware.editing","name":"multi-file-codebase-aware-editing","description":"Enables the agent to navigate, read, and modify multiple files within a repository while maintaining awareness of code structure and dependencies. The agent can search for symbols, view file contents with line numbers, and apply edits across files using terminal-based tools (grep, find, sed, git) or direct file operations, maintaining consistency across the codebase without requiring full context loading.","intents":["I want the agent to find and fix all occurrences of a bug across multiple files","I need the agent to understand how changes in one file affect imports and dependencies in other files","I want the agent to refactor code across a large codebase autonomously"],"best_for":["developers automating cross-file refactoring tasks","teams using agents for large-scale codebase migrations","research on multi-file code generation and editing"],"limitations":["Agent must use terminal commands (grep, find, git) to navigate; no built-in AST parsing or semantic understanding","Large repositories may exceed context windows, limiting the agent's ability to reason about global dependencies","No built-in dependency resolution; agent must infer relationships from code patterns","File edit operations are terminal-based and may lack precision compared to AST-aware refactoring tools"],"requires":["Git repository with standard structure","Terminal tools: grep, find, sed, git","Read/write access to repository files"],"input_types":["file paths","search patterns (regex or literal strings)","code snippets for insertion or replacement"],"output_types":["modified files","git diffs and commits","search results with file locations and line numbers"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.test.execution.and.validation","name":"test-execution-and-validation","description":"Executes test suites and validates code changes by running tests through the terminal, parsing test output to determine success/failure, and using test results to guide further edits. The agent can identify failing tests, understand error messages, and iteratively modify code to pass tests, creating a feedback loop for autonomous bug fixing and feature implementation.","intents":["I want the agent to automatically fix code to pass failing tests","I need the agent to validate changes by running the full test suite","I want the agent to understand test failures and propose fixes based on error messages"],"best_for":["developers automating test-driven bug fixes","teams using agents for continuous integration and automated testing","research on test-guided code generation"],"limitations":["Test parsing depends on standard test framework output formats; custom test runners may not be recognized","Agent may struggle with flaky tests or non-deterministic failures","No built-in handling for long-running tests or resource-intensive test suites","Limited to test frameworks that produce parseable terminal output (pytest, jest, unittest, etc.)"],"requires":["Test framework installed and configured (pytest, jest, unittest, etc.)","Test files present in repository","Ability to execute tests via terminal commands"],"input_types":["test file paths or test suite names","code changes to validate"],"output_types":["test results (pass/fail counts)","error messages and stack traces","code modifications based on test feedback"],"categories":["automation-workflow","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.git.based.version.control.integration","name":"git-based-version-control-integration","description":"Integrates with Git to track changes, create commits, and manage branches as part of the autonomous workflow. The agent can view diffs, stage changes, create commits with meaningful messages, and manage branches, enabling reproducible and auditable code modifications. Git integration provides a natural checkpoint mechanism for the agent to track progress and revert changes if needed.","intents":["I want the agent to create clean, auditable commits for each fix or feature","I need to track what changes the agent made and why","I want the agent to work on feature branches and create pull requests"],"best_for":["teams integrating agents into CI/CD pipelines","developers who need audit trails for autonomous code changes","organizations using agents for collaborative development workflows"],"limitations":["Agent must understand Git semantics and commit message conventions; no built-in guidance for meaningful commit messages","Merge conflicts are not automatically resolved; agent must handle conflicts through terminal commands","No built-in support for pull request creation or code review workflows","Agent may create many small commits rather than logical, reviewable changesets"],"requires":["Git repository initialized and configured","Git command-line tools available","User identity configured (git config user.name, user.email)"],"input_types":["file modifications","commit messages","branch names"],"output_types":["git diffs","commits","branch references","merge status"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_5","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.swe.bench.benchmark.evaluation","name":"swe-bench-benchmark-evaluation","description":"Evaluates agent performance on the SWE Bench benchmark, a standardized dataset of real-world software engineering tasks from GitHub repositories. The framework provides infrastructure to run the agent on benchmark tasks, measure success rates, and compare performance against baselines. The agent is evaluated on its ability to resolve GitHub issues and implement features in real codebases.","intents":["I want to benchmark my autonomous coding agent against a standard dataset","I need to compare my agent's performance to other autonomous coding systems","I want to understand what types of tasks my agent can and cannot solve"],"best_for":["research teams developing autonomous coding agents","organizations evaluating code generation tools","developers benchmarking improvements to agent architectures"],"limitations":["SWE Bench success rate is low (12.29% for this agent); most real-world tasks remain unsolved","Benchmark tasks are biased toward Python and JavaScript; performance on other languages unknown","Evaluation is deterministic but may not reflect real-world usage patterns or user preferences","No fine-grained metrics for partial credit; tasks are binary pass/fail"],"requires":["SWE Bench dataset (publicly available)","Ability to clone and execute arbitrary GitHub repositories","Sufficient compute resources for running multiple benchmark tasks","Python environment with required dependencies"],"input_types":["GitHub issue descriptions","repository code and structure","test specifications"],"output_types":["success/failure status","performance metrics (pass rate, execution time)","detailed logs of agent actions"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_6","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.long.horizon.task.decomposition.and.planning","name":"long-horizon-task-decomposition-and-planning","description":"Decomposes complex software engineering tasks into sub-goals and plans a sequence of actions to achieve them. The agent uses a reasoning loop to identify what needs to be done, plan the next steps, and execute them iteratively. This enables handling of multi-step tasks like bug fixes that require understanding the codebase, identifying root causes, implementing fixes, and validating with tests.","intents":["I want the agent to break down a complex bug fix into manageable steps","I need the agent to understand dependencies between tasks and execute them in the right order","I want the agent to recover from mistakes and try alternative approaches"],"best_for":["developers automating complex, multi-step code modifications","research teams studying agent planning and reasoning","teams building agents for real-world software engineering tasks"],"limitations":["Planning is reactive (ReAct-style) rather than proactive; agent may not anticipate future steps","No explicit backtracking or alternative path exploration; agent commits to a single approach","Context window limitations may prevent the agent from reasoning about very long task sequences","No built-in mechanism for learning from failures or improving planning over time"],"requires":["LLM with reasoning capabilities (model not specified)","Ability to execute terminal commands and observe results","Task description in natural language"],"input_types":["natural language task description","repository context","error messages and feedback"],"output_types":["sequence of planned actions","executed code modifications","reasoning traces and decision logs"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set__cap_7","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.error.recovery.and.iterative.refinement","name":"error-recovery-and-iterative-refinement","description":"Handles failures and errors by parsing error messages, understanding what went wrong, and iteratively refining code to fix issues. When a test fails, compilation error occurs, or a command returns an error, the agent analyzes the error output and proposes modifications to address the root cause. This enables the agent to learn from failures and improve its solutions over multiple iterations.","intents":["I want the agent to understand why a test failed and fix the code accordingly","I need the agent to handle compilation errors and syntax issues automatically","I want the agent to try multiple approaches if the first one doesn't work"],"best_for":["developers automating iterative bug fixing","teams using agents for continuous improvement of code quality","research on error-driven code generation"],"limitations":["Error recovery depends on parsing error messages; unclear or non-standard error formats may confuse the agent","Agent may enter infinite loops if it cannot understand or fix an error","No explicit limit on iteration count; may consume excessive compute resources","Recovery strategies are learned implicitly; no explicit error handling rules or heuristics"],"requires":["Error messages and logs from failed operations","Ability to re-execute commands and observe new results","LLM with reasoning capabilities to understand error causes"],"input_types":["error messages and stack traces","test output and failure logs","code that failed to compile or execute"],"output_types":["modified code","error analysis and root cause identification","refined solutions"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":20,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Python 3.8+","Access to LLM API (model backbone not specified in artifact)","Git repository with standard structure","Unix-like terminal environment or compatible shell","Custom terminal wrapper implementation (provided by SWE-agent framework)","Unix-like shell environment","Python subprocess or equivalent for terminal spawning","Terminal tools: grep, find, sed, git","Read/write access to repository files","Test framework installed and configured (pytest, jest, unittest, etc.)"],"failure_modes":["Performance on SWE Bench is 12.29% (real-world success rate is low for complex tasks)","Requires full repository context and may struggle with large codebases exceeding context windows","No built-in handling for interactive debugging or runtime error recovery beyond terminal output parsing","Limited to tasks expressible through terminal commands and file system operations","Specialized terminal abstraction adds latency (~50-200ms per command) compared to direct shell execution","Requires custom terminal wrapper implementation; not compatible with arbitrary shell environments","Output parsing may fail for non-standard command outputs or interactive prompts","Limited to commands that produce text output; binary data handling not documented","Agent must use terminal commands (grep, find, git) to navigate; no built-in AST parsing or semantic understanding","Large repositories may exceed context windows, limiting the agent's ability to reason about global dependencies","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.16,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.5,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.28,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"inactive","updated_at":"2026-05-06T15:12:23.809Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:10.321Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set"}},"signature":"nk5rT5vZpwDbjoscgF4nkXwzcCgu9vToREc+cX/jwCTNdKK3PCAhQU85ifXNN8A1j+gKkVnE9085pCt7nfUjDA==","signedAt":"2026-06-15T22:35:13.290Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=an-open-source-devin-getting-12-29-on-100-of-the-swe-bench-test-set-vs-devin-s-13-84-on-25-of-the-test-set","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}