AgentCheck: A Reproduce-Intervene-Mitigate Workbench for LLM Agents over MCP
arXiv:2607. 11098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work.
arXiv:2608. 06701v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fixing GitHub issues in large-scale projects is a long-horizon task, especially when a fix requires changes across multiple locations or the issue description lacks the information needed to localize and repair it.
arXiv:2607. 11098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work.
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...
Software engineering (SWE) agents resolve repository-level issues through long trajectories that grow increasingly expensive as context accumulates. Failed runs tend to be longer and exhibit redundant exploration or looping, suggesting that some failures may be detectable before completion.
arXiv:2606. 13468v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly used to generate pull requests (PRs) that propose code fixes in software projects.
arXiv:2609.32490v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-based multi-agent systems (MASs) have shown strong potential for solving complex tasks, but most assume that task requirements are sufficiently...
arXiv:2608. 06811v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Resolving a real software issue with a large language model (LLM) agent is a long repair episode, often tens to hundreds of steps spanning exploration, hypothesis, implementation, and verification.
arXiv:2607. 00990v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based software engineering agents are increasingly developed to resolve software issues by generating patches from issue reports and code repositories.
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:2609.37864v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent harness bugs exhibit unique characteristics and remain challenging for state-of-the-art software agents to repair. Progress in this area is fur...
arXiv:2605.29442v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI coding agents increasingly act directly within software environments, yet existing analyses of their failures rely on benchmark trajectori...
arXiv:2608. 06346v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based agentic systems have shown remarkable capabilities in complex domains, while suffering from cascading errors and difficulty in debugging.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.