arXiv subjects

Kla Tantithamthavorn

Publications and source records attributed to Kla Tantithamthavorn.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

XAgent: eXecution-guided Agentic AI for Effective Localization and Resolution of GitHub Issues

Agentic AI has enabled capabilities in leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously resolve repository-level GitHub issues. However, due to the reliance on limited static description of issues, existing agentic approaches suffer from incorrect localization and incomplete validation. Solely relying on this information can bias LLM reasoning toward the narrow scope of the issue description, leading to incomplete patches that fail to address the underlying issue. In this paper, we present XAgent, an execution-guided agentic framework that analyzes dynamic behavior and additional program context to localize and validate issues. The experimental results on the SWE-bench-lite dataset demonstrate that XAgent outperforms other existing approaches, achieving a resolve rate of 62.0% and a function localization accuracy of 72.8%, while maintaining cost efficiency. Our analysis further shows that XAgent successfully resolves 7 additional issues that the top existing baselines fail to address. This work highlights a shift from static, description-oriented patch generation toward dynamic execution-guided issue resolution, opening new opportunities for LLM-based coding agents to achieve more robust and generalizable software maintenance.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Requirements-Augmented Generation for Trustworthy Acceptance Testing of LLM-Based Software

LLM-based software (LBS) integrates large language models as core components to deliver flexible, personalised responses. Unlike traditional software with deterministic outputs, LBSs exhibit context-dependent, stochastic behaviour that renders classical acceptance testing and test oracles insufficient: the same query may require fundamentally different responses depending on user personas and software context. This gap creates an urgent need for automated acceptance testing frameworks that autonomously interpret user instructions, while reliably inferring user intentions in a changing environment. In this paper, we present an automated acceptance testing framework for LBS with calibrated verdict reliability via two technical contributions. First, we introduce Requirements-Augmented Generation (REAG), which interprets user intentions by retrieving relevant software requirements, domain knowledge, and personas via adaptive RAG and self-reasoning to generate context-aware test oracles. Second, recognising that oracle generation may retrieve irrelevant constraints, misinterpret intent, or hallucinate requirements, we introduce a confidence-calibrated cascade judgment. This method quantifies verdict reliability via simulated expert agreement -- accepting high-confidence verdicts, escalating ambiguous cases, or abstaining when uncertain -- with empirical reliability guarantees backed by conformal risk control. An industrial case study on a production nutrition advisory application demonstrates that REAG achieves a 3.91/5 oracle quality score, reaching qualified or marginal oracle quality in 82% of cases. The confidence-calibrated cascade achieves 98.8% accuracy, improves oracle quality from 3.91 to 4.30 by filtering unqualified outputs, and delivers a 31.7% cost-efficiency improvement over single-judge baselines, validating industrial viability

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Towards a Risk Assessment of Malicious Skill Files in Coding Agents

Autonomous coding agents are increasingly embedded in enterprise software workflows with delegated authority over connected systems. Central to this architecture is the agent skills interface: folders of instructions and scripts that agents load dynamically to specialize their behavior. This interface also widens the attack surface, letting malicious shell commands hide within natural-language skill files. We make three contributions. First, an adversarial skill-synthesis method using six LLMs across four families to transform 471 real-world shell commands into benign-appearing skills, released as a benchmark of 2,826 skills mapped to 11 MITRE ATT&CK tactics. Second, a reproducible evaluation pipeline coupling run stratification, evidence anchoring, a refusal veto, and a deterministic declared-intent override with a three-judge LLM-as-a-judge panel, validated against a blind human gold standard (Cohen's kappa = 0.85). Third, a large-scale characterization of two enterprise-grade agents across 5,629 completed runs. Gemini CLI is exploited in 95.5-96.1% of runs and Qwen Code in 71.6-74.0% (raw majority vote to declared-intent-corrected estimate, both within the human gold standard), nearly invariant to the generating model. Explicit safety recognition occurs in only 1.99% of runs. Enterprises must assess and mitigate skill-interface risk before adopting coding agents. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/awsm-research/AgentJailbreak

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

AgenticSCR: An Autonomous Agentic Secure Code Review for Immature Vulnerabilities Detection

Secure code review is critical during pre-integration, where Atlassian developers rely on lightweight analysis tools, while deep security assessment is deferred to later stages, delaying feedback and increasing remediation costs. Existing static analyzers are often noisy and struggle with context-dependent or partially manifested vulnerabilities, while static large language model (LLM) reviewers are constrained by context windows and lack tool interaction. Agentic AI, which combines LLMs with code navigation, shows promise; however, its effectiveness for early-stage secure code review remains underexplored. We present AgenticSCR, an agentic secure code reviewer augmented with security-focused semantic memory that grounds reasoning in structured security knowledge to detect vulnerabilities before they fully manifest. AgenticSCR achieves at least 153% relative improvement in generating comments with correct localization, vulnerability type, and relevance over static LLM baseline, multi-agent reviewer, and SAST tools. In a shadow deployment, 54% of its comments were validated by security engineers for developer reporting, demonstrating practical utility while underscoring the difficulty of the task. These findings position the security-focused semantic memory as a promising direction for agentic secure code review, enabling early-stage vulnerability identification. Our approach builds an important step toward reliable localization, detection, and explanation in shift-left security practices

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

AgenticRepair: Multi-Faceted Program Context Engineering for Agentic Vulnerability Repair

Automated vulnerability repair aims to reduce the time and effort required to patch security flaws from a vulnerability triage report. Recent agentic AI approaches have shown promising results in automated program repair. However, vulnerability repair demands richer program context than general bug repair - context that security engineers routinely assemble in practice but that existing agentic approaches do not engineer. We identify three critical gaps: code-structure context capturing cross-file data flows and memory operation patterns, runtime-execution context revealing crash semantics and memory origins, and commit-history context recovering how fragile code patterns were introduced. We present AgenticRepair, an agentic vulnerability repair framework that addresses the gaps through multi-faceted program context engineering. AgenticRepair orchestrates three specialized LLM subagents to engineer the contexts, which are then embedded into the memory of a dedicated repair subagent for context-conditioned patch synthesis. Evaluated on SEC-Bench comprising 300 real-world instances with sanitizer-based patch verification, AgenticRepair achieves a 73% success rate, substantially outperforming the strongest baseline by 29%. Our ablation study confirms that the three context facets are mutually complementary, and that multi-agent scaffolding and base-model capacity each play an essential role. Collectively, these findings establish multi-faceted program context engineering as a promising design direction for agentic vulnerability repair.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

SkillGate: Cost Efficient Runtime Malicious Skill File Detection in Coding Agents

Software engineering teams now deploy AI coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot) as first-class productivity tools, installing domain-specific skill files to tailor agent behavior to project APIs, framework conventions, and organizational workflows. These complex Markdown files are easily downloaded from public registries with a single npx skills add command and no real security screening, representing a novel supply-chain attack surface: a malicious skill file can silently reprogram agent behavior, exfiltrating credentials, injecting backdoors into generated code, or redirecting agent actions to attacker-controlled endpoints. The threat is not hypothetical: recent reports document hundreds of malicious skill packages in public registries, including organized campaigns that distributed credential-stealing infostealers via fake productivity skills. No systematic toolchain defense exists for this attack surface. We present SkillGate, a deployable security gateway that screens AI skill packages before coding agent installation. SkillGate uses a hybrid regex-prefilter + LLM-judge pipeline: safe-signal files bypass the LLM entirely (skip savings); flagged files have only their matched snippet windows sent to the judge, not the full content (snippet savings). We answer four research questions covering detection effectiveness, screening cost, runtime overhead, and false positive behavior on the SkillsBench benchmark against two existing tools. On SkillsBench (n=1,650, 9.1% malicious), SkillGate achieves F1=0.817, FPR=1.13% while reducing LLM input tokens by 77% vs. full-file screening, and outperforming existing tools by 5-6x on threshold-independent AUPRC (0.830 vs. 0.144/0.162).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

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

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 empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Agentic Code Review in the Terminal: A Trajectory-Level Analysis of Behavior, Cost, and Human-Alignment

Agentic code review in terminal-based environments enables early feedback during local development before pull request creation. However, existing evaluations remain performance-centric and fail to capture the dynamic behaviors of repository-grounded agentic reviewers. Understanding these behaviors is critical for identifying how agentic reviewers succeed, fail, and incur hidden operational costs in practice. Then, we analyze the reviewers' behavior based on their trajectories. Our results show that agentic reviewers achieve higher review precision but incur substantial exploration and validation overhead, while successful reviews are associated with stronger planning and less downstream validation. These findings highlight the potential benefits of trajectory-aware and cost-sensitive evaluation of future agentic code review systems.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

CodeChat-Eval: Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Code Refinement Dialogues

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering to generate and refine code. In practice, developers often continue from an initial code generation request with follow-up refinement instructions, such as requests to improve style, restructure implementation, or change the execution strategy while preserving the intended behaviour. However, existing benchmarks generally omit this multi-turn code refinement dialogue setting and therefore cannot evaluate whether LLMs maintain functional correctness, i.e., whether the refined code still passes the test suite for the original task. To address this limitation, we introduce CodeChat-Eval, an evaluation framework that constructs evaluation sessions from multi-turn code refinement dialogues using a dynamic instruction selection algorithm. Our empirical study on open-weight and proprietary LLMs observes a statistically significant decrease ranging from 19.2% (GPT-5 Nano) to 69.2% (Llama 3.1 8B) in functional correctness over multi-turn refinement. The largest correctness drops are associated with logic-level refinements and additive change requests. These findings indicate that LLMs struggle to maintain functional correctness during multi-turn code refinement dialogues, and highlight the need for benchmarks that evaluate functionality-preserving refinement beyond single-turn generation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

HalluJudge: A Reference-Free Hallucination Detection for Context Misalignment in Code Review Automation

Large Language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in code review automation, such as review comment generation, yet they suffer from hallucinations -- where the generated review comments are ungrounded in the actual code -- poses a significant challenge to the adoption of LLMs in code review workflows. To address this, we explore effective and scalable methods for a hallucination detection in LLM-generated code review comments without the reference. In this work, we design HalluJudge that aims to assess the grounding of generated review comments based on the context alignment. HalluJudge includes four key strategies ranging from direct assessment to structured multi-branch reasoning (e.g., Tree-of-Thoughts). We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of these assessment strategies across Atlassian's enterprise-scale software projects to examine the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of HalluJudge. Furthermore, we analyze the alignment between HalluJudge's judgment and developer preference of the actual LLM-generated code review comments in the real-world production. Our results show that the hallucination assessment in HalluJudge is cost-effective with an F1 score of 0.85 and an average cost of $0.009. On average, 67% of the HalluJudge assessments are aligned with the developer preference of the actual LLM-generated review comments in the online production. Our results suggest that HalluJudge can serve as a practical safeguard to reduce developers' exposure to hallucinated comments, fostering trust in AI-assisted code reviews.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassian

Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered code review automation has the potential to transform code review workflows. Despite the advances of LLM-powered code review comment generation approaches, several practical challenges remain for designing enterprise-grade code review automation tools. In particular, this paper aims at answering the practical question: how can we design a review-guided, context-aware, quality-checked code review comment generation without fine-tuning? In this paper, we present RovoDev Code Reviewer, an enterprise-grade LLM-based code review automation tool designed and deployed at scale within Atlassian's development ecosystem with seamless integration into Atlassian's Bitbucket. Through the offline, online, user feedback evaluations over a one-year period, we conclude that RovoDev Code Reviewer is effective in generating code review comments that could lead to code resolution for 38.70% (i.e., comments that triggered code changes in the subsequent commits); and offers the promise of accelerating feedback cycles (i.e., decreasing the PR cycle time by 30.8%), alleviating reviewer workload (i.e., reducing the number of human-written comments by 35.6%), and improving overall software quality (i.e., finding errors with actionable suggestions).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

What Types of Code Review Comments Do Developers Most Frequently Resolve?

Large language model (LLM)-powered code review automation tools have been introduced to generate code review comments. However, not all generated comments will drive code changes. Understanding what types of generated review comments are likely to trigger code changes is crucial for identifying those that are actionable. In this paper, we set out to investigate (1) the types of review comments written by humans and LLMs, and (2) the types of generated comments that are most frequently resolved by developers. To do so, we developed an LLM-as-a-Judge to automatically classify review comments based on our own taxonomy of five categories. Our empirical study confirms that (1) the LLM reviewer and human reviewers exhibit distinct strengths and weaknesses depending on the project context, and (2) readability, bugs, and maintainability-related comments had higher resolution rates than those focused on code design. These results suggest that a substantial proportion of LLM-generated comments are actionable and can be resolved by developers. Our work highlights the complementarity between LLM and human reviewers and offers suggestions to improve the practical effectiveness of LLM-powered code review tools.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Comparing Human and LLM Generated Code: The Jury is Still Out!

Much is promised in relation to AI-supported software development. However, there has been limited evaluation effort in the research domain aimed at validating the true utility of such techniques, especially when compared to human coding outputs. We bridge this gap, where a benchmark dataset comprising 72 distinct software engineering tasks is used to compare the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) and human programmers in producing Python software code. GPT-4 is used as a representative LLM, where for the code generated by humans and this LLM, we evaluate code quality and adherence to Python coding standards, code security and vulnerabilities, code complexity and functional correctness. We use various static analysis benchmarks, including Pylint, Radon, Bandit and test cases. Among the notable outcomes, results show that human-generated code recorded higher ratings for adhering to coding standards than GPT-4. We observe security flaws in code generated by both humans and GPT-4, however, code generated by humans shows a greater variety of problems, but GPT-4 code included more severe outliers. Our results show that although GPT-4 is capable of producing coding solutions, it frequently produces more complex code that may need more reworking to ensure maintainability. On the contrary however, our outcomes show that a higher number of test cases passed for code generated by GPT-4 across a range of tasks than code that was generated by humans. That said, GPT-4 frequently struggles with complex problem-solving that involve in-depth domain knowledge. This study highlights the potential utility of LLMs for supporting software development, however, tasks requiring comprehensive, innovative or unconventional solutions, and careful debugging and error correction seem to be better developed by human programmers. We plot an agenda for the software engineering community.

cs.SE↗