Bonan Shen

LLM-Driven CI-CD Workflow Intelligence for Cyber Systems Engineering

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. That makes them an important measurement point for cyber-systems engineering. Recent large language model (LLM) work shows that workflow stages can be recognized directly from configuration files, but stage labels alone do not tell us whether a workflow is brittle, unusual for its ecosystem, or worth revising first. We present an LLM-based CI/CD analysis pipeline that combines repository enrichment, anti-pattern detection, stage mining, and recommendation generation over a large GitHub corpus. Starting from 59,550 repositories with at least 1,000 stars, we identify 34,225 projects with CI/CD and collect 127,559 configuration files. Across 75,201 analyzed workflows, the anti-pattern detector reports 434,769 findings, dominated by reliability and maintainability issues. Across 59,906 configurations, stage usage differs significantly by language ($\chi^2 = 4168.88$, $p<0.001$, Cramer's $V = 0.063$), and domain analysis shows distinct operational profiles, including higher release and cache usage in mobile projects. For repository-level recommendation generation, few-shot prompting performs best overall, averaging 8.25 recommendations per repository with 96.1% YAML-valid snippets. Taken together, the results argue for CI/CD observability that combines diagnosis, context, and human review rather than treating workflow mining as a stage-classification problem alone.

Context-Masked Truncated Reasoning Audits for Answer-Key Dependence in LLM Tutors

Large language model (LLM) tutors may have access to teacher notes, answer keys, rubrics, or retrieved solutions while producing student-facing explanations. We study whether truncated reasoning probes can distinguish direct access to such private context from answer information carried by the written explanation. Using Truncated Reasoning AUC Evaluation (TRACE), we evaluate 1000 GSM8K problems under question-only, correct answer-key, and wrong answer-key contexts. When forced-answer probes retain the private key, answer-key TRACE AUC rises from 0.375 to 0.900, and the gold answer is recoverable with no explanation at all in 998 of 1000 cases. We then introduce a context-masked replay: answer-key-generated prefixes are probed under the corresponding question-only prompt. Masking reduces 10\% prefix accuracy from 0.997 to 0.126 and median AUC from 0.900 to 0.375, nearly matching question-only values of 0.113 and 0.375. On 746 pairs where both explanations end correctly, the masked mean AUC difference is $-0.0086$ with a 95\% bootstrap interval spanning zero. Wrong keys still account for 272 of 387 incorrect final responses, showing that private artifacts can influence outputs even when early-prefix evidence disappears after masking. These results establish context masking as necessary for attributing early answer availability to an explanation rather than its hidden input.

ParEvalLayer: When Partial LLM-Agent Evaluations Support a Decision

LLM-agent evaluations often produce task outcomes long before the full benchmark run is complete. A partial score is tempting to report, but it does not show whether the observed tasks support the same conclusion as the completed evaluation. Early tasks can omit important parts of a benchmark, running cheaper tasks first can distort the observed sample, and a rule that decides only easy pairs can appear accurate while leaving many comparisons unresolved. We introduce ParEvalLayer, a decision layer that reads paired outcomes for two agent systems and a comparison policy chosen in advance. For each partial run, it records whether the tested agent system is better by the required amount, is not better by that amount, needs more evidence, or should abstain. We evaluate ParEvalLayer by replaying completed public benchmark data as if each evaluation had stopped earlier. At each point, ParEvalLayer applies the policy using only the outcomes observed so far; if it reaches one of the two comparison judgments, we check whether that judgment matches the completed data for the same system pair. With the main comparison rule, three of the public benchmarks reach the same decision as the completed evaluation after observing only 15% to 25% of task outcomes. Other benchmarks require more task outcomes. This variation shows why a partial score alone is not enough: reports should also state the decision rule and how many comparisons remain without a decision.

Detecting Answer-Driven Reasoning in LLM-Based Educational Tutors via Truncated Chain-of-Thought Auditing