{"claim_id":"VIBE-001","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_scope","value":"200 tasks","claim":"SusVibes contains 200 real-world repository-level feature tasks.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-002","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_scope","value":"77 CWEs","claim":"The benchmark covers 77 Common Weakness Enumeration categories.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-003","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_scope","value":"10 domains","claim":"SusVibes spans 10 real-world application domains.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-004","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_scale","value":"162K lines","claim":"The mean repository context contained 162,000 lines of code.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-005","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_scale","value":"867 files","claim":"The mean repository context contained 867 files.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-006","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_tests","value":"68.8","claim":"A SusVibes task had 68.8 functional test cases on average.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-007","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"benchmark_tests","value":"3.7","claim":"A SusVibes task had 3.7 security test cases on average.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-008","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"61.0% / 10.5%","claim":"SWE-agent with Claude 4 Sonnet achieved 61.0% FuncPass and 10.5% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-009","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"49.5% / 12.5%","claim":"OpenHands with Claude 4 Sonnet achieved 49.5% FuncPass and 12.5% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-010","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"44.0% / 6.0%","claim":"Claude Code with Claude 4 Sonnet achieved 44.0% FuncPass and 6.0% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-011","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"22.5% / 6.0%","claim":"SWE-agent with Kimi K2 achieved 22.5% FuncPass and 6.0% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-012","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"37.0% / 9.0%","claim":"OpenHands with Kimi K2 achieved 37.0% FuncPass and 9.0% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-013","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"43.5% / 8.0%","claim":"Claude Code with Kimi K2 achieved 43.5% FuncPass and 8.0% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-014","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"19.5% / 7.0%","claim":"SWE-agent with Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved 19.5% FuncPass and 7.0% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-015","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"21.5% / 8.5%","claim":"OpenHands with Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved 21.5% FuncPass and 8.5% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-016","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"agent_result","value":"15.0% / 4.5%","claim":"Claude Code with Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved 15.0% FuncPass and 4.5% SecPass.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-017","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"security_gap","value":"82.8%","claim":"Among functionally correct SWE-agent and Claude 4 Sonnet solutions, 82.8% were insecure.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-018","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"security_gap","value":"74.7%","claim":"Among functionally correct OpenHands and Claude 4 Sonnet solutions, 74.7% were insecure.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-019","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"prompt_tradeoff","value":"about -6 points","claim":"The paper's preliminary security-prompting strategies reduced functional correctness by about six percentage points.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03262v1","source_title":"Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"SusVibes benchmark of 200 Python repository-level feature tasks covering 77 CWE categories","denominator":"200 SusVibes tasks for the main pass@1 results unless a claim states a conditional functionally-correct subset","period":"arXiv version 1, December 2025","geography":"not applicable; open-source software repositories","caveat":"Preprint results are benchmark-specific pass@1 outcomes. Agent framework, model, prompt, task set, runtime, and security-test definitions prevent direct generalization to all vibe-coded software.","evidence":"Abstract, benchmark overview, Tables 2 and 3, and Section 4 results","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"SusVibes","evaluation_type":"paired functional and security benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-020","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"mitigation","value":"87.5% / 76.0%","claim":"GoodVibe averaged 87.5% secure-code performance on the paper's C++ benchmark and 76.0% on Java.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2602.10778v2","source_title":"GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code Generation","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"six open-weight code-model families evaluated on C++, Java, Swift, and Go secure-code generation benchmarks","denominator":"benchmark-specific task and judge bases vary by table; see the cited GoodVibe section and do not combine with SusVibes","period":"arXiv version 2, 2026","geography":"not applicable; benchmark evaluation","caveat":"GoodVibe is an experimental model-adaptation method, not evidence that ordinary vibe-coding workflows are safe. Security scores depend on the benchmark and judge model.","evidence":"Tables 4, 5, 6 and Section 5.4","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"GoodVibe","evaluation_type":"secure-code generation and utility benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-021","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"prompt_baseline","value":"35.1% / 59.3%","claim":"Under standard prompting, the baseline models averaged 35.1% on C++ and 59.3% on Java in the GoodVibe comparison.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2602.10778v2","source_title":"GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code Generation","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"six open-weight code-model families evaluated on C++, Java, Swift, and Go secure-code generation benchmarks","denominator":"benchmark-specific task and judge bases vary by table; see the cited GoodVibe section and do not combine with SusVibes","period":"arXiv version 2, 2026","geography":"not applicable; benchmark evaluation","caveat":"GoodVibe is an experimental model-adaptation method, not evidence that ordinary vibe-coding workflows are safe. Security scores depend on the benchmark and judge model.","evidence":"Tables 4, 5, 6 and Section 5.4","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"GoodVibe","evaluation_type":"secure-code generation and utility benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-022","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"prompt_baseline","value":"51.57% / 75.03%","claim":"Adding a secure-prompt prefix raised the baseline averages to 51.57% on C++ and 75.03% on Java.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2602.10778v2","source_title":"GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code Generation","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"six open-weight code-model families evaluated on C++, Java, Swift, and Go secure-code generation benchmarks","denominator":"benchmark-specific task and judge bases vary by table; see the cited GoodVibe section and do not combine with SusVibes","period":"arXiv version 2, 2026","geography":"not applicable; benchmark evaluation","caveat":"GoodVibe is an experimental model-adaptation method, not evidence that ordinary vibe-coding workflows are safe. Security scores depend on the benchmark and judge model.","evidence":"Tables 4, 5, 6 and Section 5.4","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"GoodVibe","evaluation_type":"secure-code generation and utility benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-023","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"cross_language","value":"53.6% / 54.0%","claim":"GoodVibe averaged a 53.6% safe-response rate on Swift and 54.0% on Go across six models.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2602.10778v2","source_title":"GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code Generation","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"six open-weight code-model families evaluated on C++, Java, Swift, and Go secure-code generation benchmarks","denominator":"benchmark-specific task and judge bases vary by table; see the cited GoodVibe section and do not combine with SusVibes","period":"arXiv version 2, 2026","geography":"not applicable; benchmark evaluation","caveat":"GoodVibe is an experimental model-adaptation method, not evidence that ordinary vibe-coding workflows are safe. Security scores depend on the benchmark and judge model.","evidence":"Tables 4, 5, 6 and Section 5.4","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"GoodVibe","evaluation_type":"secure-code generation and utility benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}
{"claim_id":"VIBE-024","slug":"vibe-coding-statistics","category":"utility","value":"-1.03%","claim":"GoodVibe reported an average 1.03% utility drop across its reasoning and coding utility evaluation.","source_domain":"arxiv.org","source_url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2602.10778v2","source_title":"GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code Generation","source_quality":"primary_empirical_preprint","population":"six open-weight code-model families evaluated on C++, Java, Swift, and Go secure-code generation benchmarks","denominator":"benchmark-specific task and judge bases vary by table; see the cited GoodVibe section and do not combine with SusVibes","period":"arXiv version 2, 2026","geography":"not applicable; benchmark evaluation","caveat":"GoodVibe is an experimental model-adaptation method, not evidence that ordinary vibe-coding workflows are safe. Security scores depend on the benchmark and judge model.","evidence":"Tables 4, 5, 6 and Section 5.4","platform_scope":"","research_method":"","stage":"","definition_family":"","benchmark_family":"GoodVibe","evaluation_type":"secure-code generation and utility benchmark","currency":"","input_source_url":"","derived_by":"","derivation":"","audited_at":"2026-07-11"}