<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: RepoTrials</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by RepoTrials (@repotrials).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/repotrials</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/repotrials"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>RepoTrials: Turn your Git history into private coding-agent benchmarks</title>
      <dc:creator>RepoTrials</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2026 09:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/repotrials/repotrials-turn-your-git-history-into-private-coding-agent-benchmarks-4462</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/repotrials/repotrials-turn-your-git-history-into-private-coding-agent-benchmarks-4462</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Public coding-agent benchmarks answer an important question: which system performs best across a shared task set?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Engineering teams usually need a different answer:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Which agent, model, prompt, and tool configuration can we trust on our own codebase?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/PozziTiv4ik/Repo-Trials" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;RepoTrials&lt;/a&gt; is an Apache-2.0, local-first tool that turns fixes already present in Git history into repeatable regression evaluations for coding agents.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The core idea
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A repository already contains examples of real engineering work:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;code existed in a broken state;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;a test exposed the behavior;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;a human fix made that test pass; and&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;the rest of the test suite guarded against regressions.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;RepoTrials reconstructs that transition and packages it as a sealed task:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;real fix commit
  → historical base revision
  → hidden test patch
  → equal agent trials
  → separate verifier
  → comparable evidence
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;The agent receives the historical workspace without the future fix, hidden tests, or later Git objects. Grading is behavioral: the relevant failing tests must pass, while protected regression tests must remain green.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Why this is useful
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A public leaderboard can be directionally helpful, but it cannot model every private architecture, convention, dependency, or failure mode.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;RepoTrials lets a team build a benchmark from the code it already owns. The engine can remain public while the task corpus, hidden tests, reference patches, and raw run artifacts remain local under &lt;code&gt;.repotrials/&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That makes the result useful for questions such as:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Did a new model actually improve on our repository?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Is a cheaper configuration good enough for our routine fixes?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Does a new prompt help consistently, or did it only win one lucky run?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Can we reproduce the comparison later from machine-readable artifacts?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Try the complete demo
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The v0.1.0 demo creates a two-commit repository, mines one historical task, validates it, runs a no-op agent and a fixing agent, compares the results, writes an HTML report, and exports the task for Harbor.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;git clone &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--depth&lt;/span&gt; 1 &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--branch&lt;/span&gt; v0.1.0 https://github.com/PozziTiv4ik/Repo-Trials.git
&lt;span class="nb"&gt;cd &lt;/span&gt;Repo-Trials
python &lt;span class="nt"&gt;-m&lt;/span&gt; pip &lt;span class="nb"&gt;install&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class="nt"&gt;-e&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class="s2"&gt;".[dev]"&lt;/span&gt;
python scripts/demo.py
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;No model API key is required for the demo.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Expected comparison:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;noop-agent   0/1 resolved
fix-agent    1/1 resolved
delta       +100 percentage points
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  What happens under the hood
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For a base revision &lt;code&gt;B&lt;/code&gt;, hidden test patch &lt;code&gt;T&lt;/code&gt;, and historical human solution &lt;code&gt;S&lt;/code&gt;, validation checks:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;BASE   B       + original tests   → pass
RED    B       + T                → relevant failure
GOLD   B + S   + T                → pass
NOOP   B       + T                → not resolved
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;Accepted tasks can be run against any command-based coding agent. Results are stored as JSON and can be rendered as HTML reports. Tasks can also be exported to a Harbor-compatible layout with a separate verifier.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Honest v0.1 boundaries
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is the first public release, not a security or procurement certification.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The current version is strongest on Python repositories with reproducible historical tests. Human task review still matters. Validation and agent commands execute arbitrary repository code, so untrusted workloads belong in an isolated environment. The project also documents unsupported patch shapes and historical checkout limitations rather than hiding them.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Those constraints are exactly why the project is open: the evaluation contract, schemas, threat model, and artifacts can be inspected and challenged.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Feedback wanted
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you evaluate coding agents on a real repository, try the demo and tell us where the workflow breaks for you.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/PozziTiv4ik/Repo-Trials" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;GitHub repository&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/PozziTiv4ik/Repo-Trials/releases/tag/v0.1.0" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;v0.1.0 release&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/PozziTiv4ik/Repo-Trials/blob/main/docs/methodology.md" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;Methodology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/PozziTiv4ik/Repo-Trials/blob/main/docs/threat-model.md" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;Threat model&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Disclosure: this launch post was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the v0.1.0 project documentation.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>testing</category>
      <category>python</category>
      <category>opensource</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
