CodeAssistBench (CAB): Dataset & Benchmarking for Multi-turn Chat-Based Code Assistance
Myeongsoo Kim, Shweta Garg, Baishakhi Ray, Varun Kumar, Anoop Deoras
TL;DR
CodeAssistBench (CAB) tackles the gap in realistic programming-assistance benchmarks by auto constructing multi-turn, environment-grounded tasks from real GitHub issues and evaluating LLMs in fully simulated maintainer–user dialogues. The approach combines automated Dockerized build environments, satisfaction-condition extraction, and a judge-driven scoring protocol to measure not only correctness but also conversation quality and practicality. Across $3{,}286$ issues from $214$ repositories in seven languages, results reveal a persistent gap between traditional Q&A performance (often above $70\%$ accuracy) and real-world project-specific support (frequently below $20\%$ accuracy), especially in post-cutoff data. CAB thus provides a scalable, reproducible benchmark for advancing multi-turn programming assistants and guiding improvements in environment-aware, user-centric code assistance.
Abstract
Programming assistants powered by large language models have improved dramatically, yet existing benchmarks still evaluate them in narrow code-generation settings. Recent efforts such as InfiBench and StackEval rely on Stack Overflow questions and remain limited to single-turn interactions, manually curated data, and isolated snippets rather than full project environments. We introduce CodeAssistBench (CAB), the first benchmark for evaluating multi-turn, project-grounded programming assistance at scale. CAB automatically constructs datasets from GitHub issues tagged as questions, using an LLM-driven pipeline that filters noise, extracts runnable contexts, builds executable containers, and verifies environment correctness. This enables continuous, automated expansion across diverse repositories without manual intervention. Using CAB, we create a testbed of 3,286 real-world issues across 214 repositories, spanning seven languages. Evaluating state-of-the-art models reveals a substantial gap: while models achieve 70-83% accuracy on Stack Overflow-style questions, they solve only 16.49% of CAB issues from post-training-cutoff repositories. On a manually validated subset of 149 issues, top models such as Claude Sonnet 4.5 reach only 12.08% correctness. These results highlight a fundamental challenge: current LLMs struggle to provide assistance in realistic, project-specific contexts despite strong performance on traditional Q&A benchmarks. CAB provides a scalable, reproducible framework for advancing research in multi-turn, codebase-grounded programming agents. The benchmark and pipeline are fully automated and publicly available at https://github.com/amazon-science/CodeAssistBench/.
