The paper introduces rebuild‑dossier, an open‑source tool that locks an application’s real interface before code is written and enforces one‑test‑at‑a‑time building through automated checks. In experiments, a compliant agent failed a held‑back test while a rule‑breaking agent passed, showing that a passing test suite can be gamed. The study also demonstrates that the automated check mechanism, rather than interface‑locking alone, is crucial for reliable rebuilds, and that multi‑level verification catches errors that single‑level checks miss.
By Parker Fawcett
The article discusses how generative models increasingly act as builders, defenders, and breakers of software, challenging the assumption that full autonomy is the ultimate goal. It introduces a framework that defines measurable independence between lifecycle roles based on shared generative substrates, and proposes five autonomy levels, three human roles, and five decision criteria to guide oversight. The authors argue that human authority should focus on specification, accountability, and emergency intervention, and they outline testable hypotheses and protocols to evaluate independence and oversight effectiveness.
By Mohamed Chahine Ghanem
arXiv:2607. 16345v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern agentic systems increasingly rely on skills: installable packages of natural language and code that teach an LLM agent to perform a domain task.
By Tejas Singh Anand, Yuet Ying Christina Wang, Wanting Jiang, Steve Masson, Tian Zheng, Bingjie Zhou
arXiv:2607. 10508v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents that conduct research (proposing ideas, writing and running code, analyzing results) can already carry a study from research question to figures, yet cannot be fully trusted.
By Kyoungmin Kim, Anastasia Ailamaki
The paper introduces Spec-Driven Agentic Development (SDAD), a framework that leverages large language models to ingest extensive functional requirement documents and repository context in a single workflow, turning specification quality into the engine for autonomous software delivery. SDAD blends disciplined upfront formalisation with rapid implementation, encompassing intent capture, machine‑readable specifications, agentic synthesis, and multi‑agent verification with human sign‑off. It positions AI‑code as a fourth production paradigm, compares it to traditional Waterfall and Agile approaches, and extends the model to team role evolution, quantitative governance metrics, and a staged migration blueprint for practical adoption.
By Vu Hung Nguyen, Thanh Nguyen
arXiv:2606. 20615v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents now act as first-class members of the software development lifecycle, but the instruments teams use to direct them enforce nothing: process encoded in prompts is flexible but unenforceable, while workflow formalisms are enforceable but do not model autonomous agents.
By Ylli Prifti, Pasquale De Meo, Alessandro Provetti
arXiv:2607. 22569v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents are increasingly integrated into system operations, where their tool use can directly modify project artifacts, execution environments, and the underlying system.
By Yifei Ge, Weisong Sun, Jinkun Xiao, Yuchen Chen, Yebo Feng, Peizhuo Lv, Xia Feng, Chunrong Fang, Zhihong Zhao, Zhenyu Chen, Yang Liu
arXiv:2609. 00546v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent systems are commonly described by the model and harness that currently produce their behavior.
By Zhenyu Zhao (Independent Researcher), Roy Zhao (Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington)
arXiv:2606. 11869v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Custom AI agents areagents that live inside their own application, talk to their own data and tools, enforce their own security boundaries, and carry their own brand and audit trail.
By Marc Alier Forment, Juanan Pereira, Francisco Jos\'e Garc\'ia-Pe\~nalvo, Mar\'ia Jos\'e Casa\~n Guerrero
The paper proposes five runtime primitives—discovery, identity, governance, attestation, and supply chain—to manage autonomous AI agents in enterprise settings. It argues that traditional control models fail because agents are transient, model-driven, and self‑discoverable, making runtime governance essential. The authors detail an implementation that mediates agent actions against policy, authorizes them via a per‑tenant vocabulary, and records them in a verifiable ledger, noting the associated operational costs and partial deployment status.
By Jiten Oswal, John Cadeddu
arXiv:2607. 08124v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The behavior of an LLM agent is determined not only by the underlying model, but also by its harness: the executable program that constructs context, invokes tools, verifies intermediate results, and recovers from failures.
By Jun Nie, Yonggang Zhang, Jun Song, Qianshu Cai, Dahai Yu, Yike Guo, Xinmei Tian, Bo Han
arXiv:2606. 26924v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM coding harnesses grant agents broad file and shell access, yet the configuration layer that steers them -- rules files, agent definitions, IDE-specific markdown -- is largely unmanaged.
By Padmaraj Madatha