arXiv:2608.25920v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MASs) are increasingly applied to long-horizon complex tasks, their reliability has emerge...
arXiv:2606. 01139v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent skills are procedural artifacts that enable LLM agents to execute workflows, verify constraints, and recover from failures.
The Agent Error Dataset (AED) presents 50,228 error–diagnosis pairs collected from 9,961 source tasks across 33 environments, 19 harness families, and 23 policy models in text‑based agent systems. A five‑stage Agentic Error‑to‑Training (AET) pipeline generates diagnoses and proposed corrections, verifies them against recorded evidence, and creates separate training views for diagnosis and actor recovery. Experiments show that first‑proposal corrections improve verifier pass rates from 18.4% to 51.1%, and fine‑tuning with full‑diagnosis data raises Qwen3‑8B’s exact‑step agreement from 47.2% to 63.6% on a holdout set.
SkillScriptBench is a 350‑task benchmark that evaluates how well large language models can self‑evolve executable agent skill packages by distinguishing between documentation repair, script repair, and preservation. The benchmark draws from 100 real GitHub skill packages, creating 150 repair tasks with injected script faults and a controlled track of 200 tasks that test clean, documentation‑faulty, script‑faulty, and combined‑faulty states. Experiments show that AST‑Guided Skill Revision—using abstract syntax trees to target relevant code locations—improves repair success by up to 27.7% and yields more consistent outcomes across repeated runs. whyItMatters":"The benchmark provides a systematic way to measure and improve the reliability of automated skill package maintenance, which is essential for deploying robust LLM agents in real‑world applications."
Self-correction is particularly useful when a failure constrains the next repair. Coding agents benefit from this property because compilers, tests, and execution traces turn many failures into typed recovery signals, but broad language-agent tasks often expose only a coarse task failure.
arXiv:2605. 17450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As software systems grow increasingly complex, automated vulnerability repair (AVR) remains difficult because the materials available to a repair system are usually failure artifacts rather than repair guidance.
arXiv:2610.15894v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) code-repair systems fix faulty programs by repeatedly generating and testing revisions. Each revision is costly, making th...
arXiv:2610.28595v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: RTL repair benchmarks should measure whether a model can fix broken RTL given a specification. To this end, we construct and hash-bind RTLRepairDataset...
arXiv:2609.34879v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Tool agents use large language models to act through external tools, yet successfully executed calls can still leave user requests unfulfilled. Too...
arXiv:2610.41025v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a language-model agent fails a multi-step task, can another model find the decisive mistake and fix it with a single action? We introduce ReplayRC...
The paper presents a systematic analysis of five state‑of‑the‑art automated program repair agents, tracing their decision‑making across 500 real‑world repair tasks. It finds that while the agents perform well on simple fixes, they struggle with logic‑intensive bugs, often producing verbose, overfitted patches that pass tests without addressing root causes. Key bottlenecks identified include poor test generation, limited regression test selection, and reliance on primitive tooling without access to debuggers or advanced program analysis tools.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.