arXiv:2606. 30689v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Spec-Driven Development (SDD) frameworks guide Large Language Model (LLM)-powered code generation through formal specifications, yet they differ fundamentally in how they enforce traceability between requirements and generated code.
arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.
arXiv:2607. 18360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set.
arXiv:2607. 19257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade.
arXiv:2606. 10457v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Decision rules that enterprise experts apply tacitly -- in auditing, compliance, and contract review -- can be systematically recovered and improved through iterative error analysis.
arXiv:2606. 09500v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective.
arXiv:2608. 04278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents increasingly work across sessions, but prose notes can preserve a conclusion without the program state that supported it.
arXiv:2607. 04579v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: CI/CD workflows have become executable operational policy: they decide what gets built, tested, released, and deployed, and they mediate how maintainers interact with delivery infrastructure.
arXiv:2606. 09046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Useful audits reveal not only how often a model fails, but also where its failures concentrate.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2608. 05204v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-agent ecosystems are rapidly growing around reusable skills: mixed-modality packages of metadata, natural-language instructions, code, tools, references, and operational workflows.
arXiv:2601. 22025v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) applications differs from conventional software testing because outputs are probabilistic, semantically variable, and sensitive to prompt and model changes.
arXiv:2605. 04135v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Readers of applied-domain LLM capability evaluations want to know what AI systems can currently do.