CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-06-26

Building to the Test: Coding Agents Deliver What You Check, Not What You Requested

Yanuo Ma, Ben Kereopa-Yorke, Ben Schultz

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CRcs.AIcs.SE2026-07-22

IssueTrojanBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents Against Malicious Issue Requests

Ankur Singh, Jinqiu Yang, Tse-Hsun Chen

AI coding agents powered by LLMs are increasingly integrated into real-world software development, where they generate, edit, and execute code with autonomous access to local files and tools. Coding agents inherit security risks from both the LLM backbone, where adversarial promp…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-02

TestEvo-Bench: An Executable and Live Benchmark for Test and Code Co-Evolution

Jiale Amber Wang, Kaiyuan Wang, Pengyu Nie

Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior. Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verif…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-12

When Does Restricting a Coding Agent to execute_code Help? A Regime $\times$ Agent-Design Ablation

Hong Yang, Qi Yu, Travis Desell

Modern coding agents expose multiple tool surfaces -- IDE primitives, bash, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) code-execution -- and the field has shipped three contradictory claims about which one matters. We run the missing crossed comparison: an integrity-clean three-arm ablatio…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-04

Don't Blame the Large Language Model: How Agent Harness Evolution Shapes Coding Agent Quality

Oussama Ben Sghaier, Hao Li, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan

Coding agents, autonomous systems that use large language models (LLMs) to resolve software engineering tasks, rely on agent harness: a middleware layer in between a developer and a large language model that orchestrates system prompts, tool execution, context management, and ite…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-03

Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild

Hong Yi Lin, Mingzhao Liang, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Kla Tantithamthavorn

Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirica…

View free PDFSource page