Co-Design Bench: Multimodal Collaborative Coding Evaluation for Agentic Models
Abstract
Evaluating human-AI co-design requires testing whether coding agents can translate real users' multimodal requests into working application revisions. We introduce Co-Design Bench, a reference-free benchmark of 273 tasks curated from 37,463 deduplicated queries across 26,314 real user coding sessions. Its two tracks, Multimodal Editing (ME) and Repository Editing (RE), cover localized edits with optional image, audio, video, or document inputs and coordinated repository revisions. Tasks span three capability dimensions: Grounded Understanding, UI Transformation, and Functional Implementation. The tasks pair normalized requests and runnable pre-edit applications with 2,331 hidden expert-authored acceptance criteria. Our judge-then-refute protocol grades criteria using source and browser evidence, challenges positive verdicts with a separate LLM verifier, and audits visual and interaction claims without gold code or target screenshots. Under a shared agentic harness, the strongest of ten model endpoints passes an average of 69.9% of criteria per task but fully satisfies only 26.4% of tasks. All ten endpoints achieve lower criterion completion on repository edits spanning three or four change types than on those spanning one or two. Co-Design Bench provides a testbed for studying the gap between partial requirement satisfaction and complete task success under agentic execution for real-user application revisions.
Community
Can a coding agent turn a real user's multimodal request into a complete, working application revision?
We're sharing Co-Design Bench: Multimodal Collaborative Coding Evaluation for Agentic Models, a benchmark built around real users' requests to revise existing applications. Each task starts with a runnable application and asks the agent to understand the user's intent, make the necessary changes, and satisfy every acceptance criterion.
Real requests, multimodal inputs, and connected changes.
Co-Design Bench contains 273 tasks and 2,331 expert-authored acceptance criteria, curated from 37,463 deduplicated queries across 26,314 real user coding sessions. It covers two complementary tracks:
- Multimodal Editing (100 tasks): localized revisions grounded in annotated screenshots and optional image, audio, video, or document inputs.
- Repository Editing (173 tasks): coordinated changes across components, routes, state, data flow, and content.
Requests can involve reproducing distinct text animations from a video, correcting a dashboard from a receipt and updating its dependent totals, or coordinating layout and interaction changes across an application. Tasks span Grounded Understanding, UI Transformation, and Functional Implementation, often combining several capabilities within one request.
Evaluate the running application, with evidence for each requirement.
Our reference-free judge-then-refute protocol assesses hidden acceptance criteria using source code and browser evidence. A separate verifier challenges positive judgments for stubs, hardcoded outputs, unreachable functionality, and requirement mismatches. Evidence audits require screenshots for visual claims and recorded browser actions for interaction claims. No gold implementation or target screenshot is required.
Partial requirement satisfaction and complete delivery tell different stories.
Across 10 model endpoints under a shared agentic harness, the strongest endpoint, gpt-6-astra, passes an average of 69.9% of criteria per task, yet fully satisfies only 26.4% of tasks. All ten endpoints achieve lower criterion completion on repository requests spanning three or four edit types than on those spanning one or two.
Qwen3.8-27B reaches 64.4% overall strict completion, ranking fourth overall, and 64.5% on Repository Editing, ranking second on that track in this evaluation. It also leads the text-only Multimodal Editing subset at 77.9%. Rankings vary with the editing setting; the small repository-track score differences do not establish a general model advantage.
The ME-96 subset comprises 96 Multimodal Editing tasks and 521 acceptance criteria, a distinct scope from the full 273-task paper evaluation.
Explore the real cases, demonstrations, evaluation tools, and results:
Project & demos · Paper · Code & evaluation · Dataset
We welcome researchers and builders working on coding agents, multimodal grounding, and reliable application editing to try the benchmark and share their findings!
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Beyond Watching and Searching: Benchmarking Agents for Video-centered Deep Research Reports (2026)
- RefCraft: Benchmarking Visual-Reference-Conditioned Agentic Generation through Web Development (2026)
- BlenderWorld: Benchmarking Visual Agents for 3D Creation from Real-World References (2026)
- WideSWE: Can Coding Agents Coordinate Changes Across Repositories? (2026)
- When Interfaces Speak: Data-Aware Generative UI Harness for Active Interaction (2026)
- PPTBench: Can Coding Agents Reconstruct the Visual World through Structured, Editable Slides (2026)
- CraftBench-UE: Deterministic Evaluation for Coding Agents in Unreal Engine (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
The gap between 69.9% of criteria per task and only 26.4% of tasks fully satisfied is the number I'd track as the headline. Per-criterion averages hide that most agent revisions are partly right, and a user still has to fix the rest. A few things I'd want to see broken out: how often the refute step overturns a positive verdict, split by stubs vs hardcoded outputs vs unreachable code, since that rate tells you how much to trust the unrefuted pass rate; judge-verifier agreement on a small human-labelled subset; and variance across repeated runs of the same endpoint, because with 273 tasks a few flaky tasks can reorder close models. A per-task all-criteria pass@k would also help.
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2610.35138 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper