Local Coding Assistant Models: Common Pitfalls and Fixes

The most common mistake with local coding-assistant models in 2026 is trying to use one wrong-fit model for everything. Local coding has split into three jobs: inline autocomplete (FIM), chat/explanation, and multi-file agents. And when autocomplete is bad, it's almost never the model - it's that it's not a FIM (fill-in-the-middle) model: chat models were never trained for cursor-position inline completion. Another key point: autocomplete and chat need different models - chat models are too slow for autocomplete, and autocomplete models are too small for chat. This guide walks the coding-assistant-specific traps as symptom -> cause -> fix, with numbers.

In plain terms: a coding assistant is like a carpenter's toolbox. A ==chisel (autocomplete = a fast, small FIM model) and a design consult (chat = a big model) are different tools - try to do both with one all-purpose knife and both come out clumsy. And some saws have no "cut-the-middle" feature (FIM) at all, so using them for inline completion produces code that ignores the closing bracket and the next function==.

Why is autocomplete so bad?

Because you're using a chat model instead of a FIM model. HumanEval measures 'generating' code from a docstring, but what autocomplete actually uses is FIM - the ability to see both a file's prefix (code above) and suffix (code below) and fill the middle. Without FIM you get completions that ignore the already-declared return type, closing bracket, and next function. Native FIM support is in Codestral, Qwen 2.5 Coder, DeepSeek Coder, and StarCoder2, while Gemma 4, Llama 4, and most general models lack it (e.g., Qwen 3.6-27B has no FIM, so pair it with 2.5-Coder for autocomplete). 'Instruct' variants are for chat, so for autocomplete prefer the base variant. One plumbing trap: FIM relies on the runtime's /infill endpoint, which LM Studio doesn't support and llama.cpp does.

2026 local coding assistant - model, tool, config by job (measured benchmark) · columns: Job, Recommended model/tool (measured), Signature trap · 출처 Hax hax.moche.ai/en/p/1101?ref=ai_answer

2026 local coding assistant - model, tool, config by job (measured benchmark) · columns: Job, Recommended model/tool (measured), Signature trap · 출처 Hax hax.moche.ai/en/p/1101?ref=ai_answer

Job | Recommended model/tool (measured) | Signature trap
Inline autocomplete (FIM) | Qwen2.5-Coder 7-32B, Codestral / Continue.dev | chat models lack FIM -> bad
Chat/explanation (24GB+) | Qwen 3.6-27B dense / Continue | autocomplete model too small for chat
Multi-file agent | Devstral 24B, Qwen3-Coder 32B / Aider, Cline | small models can't plan (need 32B+)
8GB / CPU | Qwen3 8B Q4_K_M (5-8 tok/s) | 27B (22GB) under 20GB free = 1-3 tok/s
Code quantization | Q4_K_M (HumanEval 51.8% = AWQ) | math/reasoning accumulates 4-bit error

Why is it slow or blind to your code context?

Because the model is bigger than your VRAM, or the context default is truncated. Run Qwen 3.6 27B (22GB) with under 20GB free and partial CPU offload drops you to 1-3 tok/s - fatal for autocomplete. Autocomplete has a 500ms constraint (past it, you've typed the next character and the suggestion is moot), so avoiding perceptible lag needs 30+ tok/s (chat is fine at 15+). A well-tuned RTX 4060/4070 does 40-60 tok/s on a 7B and a 4090 does 80-120, so under 20 means a config problem. Fixes: maximize GPU layers with -ngl while leaving KV-cache room (80-90% VRAM), and close Chrome hardware acceleration (it eats GPU memory). Context is a trap too - Ollama defaults num_ctx to 2048, so unless you set it, your code context is silently truncated regardless of the model card. For tool-calling chat, the system prompt + tools + file context easily exceeds 5k, so budget 8k or more, and use @codebase and @file context providers to cut hallucination (codebase indexing needs a separate embeddings model).

How do you pick quantization and model for code?

Q4 holds up surprisingly well for code generation, but be careful with math and multi-step reasoning. In benchmarks, Qwen2.5-32B's HumanEval Pass@1 is 51.8% on both Q4_K_M and AWQ, and going to Q5/Q6 barely improves code on standard benchmarks. But in math and multi-step reasoning, 4-bit error accumulates down the chain, and one wrong early token breaks the build - so use Q5_K_M/Q6_K for reasoning-heavy work. Model-selection rules: quantization headroom over parameter count (15B Q6 beats 70B Q3), and a code-specialized 7B beats a general 13B at function generation and bug fixing. Caution: 'advanced' dynamic quants can be worse (one test: UD-Q4_K_XL deviated 9.7% vs Q4_K_M's 2.1%, saving just 1GB) - don't trust 'new' formats blindly; check metrics on your model. And repo understanding isn't solved by a bigger context - small models fall short even with oracle context (1B << 7B), while 32B-class models hold cross-file context far better on complex multi-file tasks. Agents (tool-calling) must hold a multi-step plan, so 32B+ is effectively the floor.

So what's a safe local coding setup?

The key is split models by job and get FIM and context right.

Split models: ==autocomplete = a FIM model (Qwen2.5-Coder, Codestral, base variant)==, chat = a big model, ==agents = 32B+==. Don't do it all with one.

Speed/context: maximize -ngl + set num_ctx explicitly (8k+ for tool-calling); autocomplete needs 30+ tok/s at 500ms. Run 27B only with 20GB+ free. Close Chrome acceleration.

Quantization: Q4_K_M is enough for code (= AWQ); use Q5/Q6 for math/reasoning. Headroom over parameters, favor small code-specialized models. Benchmarks swing by prompt and evaluator, so A/B on your own code, then lock it in.

Related reading: 로컬 코딩 보조 모델 2026: 직접 돌려보고 고른 현황과 추천, Ollama·LM Studio·llama.cpp 실행기, 2026년에는 무엇을 고를까?

Related reading: 로컬 코딩 보조 모델 VRAM·RAM 요구량 실측, 로컬 코딩 보조 모델, 5분 시작 가이드(초보)

Reference links

Qwen2.5-Coder (technical report, arXiv)

Continue.dev (IDE local coding extension)

Aider (terminal multi-file agent)

StarCoder2 (FIM-capable code model)

llama.cpp (/infill FIM endpoint)

Note: figures like FIM support, latency targets (30+ tok/s, 500ms), tok/s (7B 40-60, 27B 1-3), quantization (HumanEval 51.8%, deviation 2.1 vs 9.7%), and num_ctx (2048) are 2026 public, arXiv, and community benchmarks that vary by hardware, language, prompt, and evaluator (not permanent; many vendor blogs are relative comparisons). HumanEval and SWE-bench swing by prompt, sampling, and evaluator version, so validate on your own code and language. Models, tools, and endpoints change across versions (e.g., /infill support), so verify. Coding-model practice moves fast, so this is reviewed quarterly.