Constraint Decay: The Fragility of LLM Agents in Backend Code Generation
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2604. 06742v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has catalyzed a paradigm shift towards intent-driven software development, where autonomous agents are expected to design and deliver complete, runnable software systems from scratch.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in agentic coding settings, where they can inspect files, execute commands, run tests, observe failures, and iteratively revise code. This shift raises a central evaluation question: can an agentic LLM generate an end-to-end software artifact that is both deployable and behaviorally correct under execution?
arXiv:2605. 27898v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents, reliable assessment of their agentic capabilities has become essential.
arXiv:2607. 11042v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in agentic coding settings, where they can inspect files, execute commands, run tests, observe failures, and iteratively revise code.
arXiv:2607. 03691v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Coding agents, autonomous systems that use large language models (LLMs) to resolve software engineering tasks, rely on agent harness: a middleware layer in between a developer and a large language model that orchestrates system prompts, tool execution, context management, and iterative reasoning loops.
arXiv:2606. 05548v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid proliferation of Agent Development Kits (ADKs), SDK-level frameworks for building LLM-powered autonomous agents, has outpaced any empirical understanding of how framework choice affects agent performance.