It is shown that test suites generated by the spec-driven agent are superior to the baseline and human-authored tests in 77.8% and 56.7% of the cases, respectively, and demonstrated improvements on following best practices, readability, and edge-case coverage.
Abstract
LLM-based agents are increasingly used for coding tasks, where they have outperformed many classical approaches and scaled to repository-level tasks, such as test generation. However, when directly prompted to generate tests, these agents can fail to reason about the code and its underlying contracts, thereby missing edge cases and behavioral boundaries that affect test quality. To address this limitation, we propose Spec-Driven Test Generation, where we instruct an agent to first reason about -- and explicitly document -- code pre-conditions, post-conditions, and undefined behaviors. This intermediate semi-formal specification acts as a cognitive scaffold to guide subsequent test generation. Our evaluation on production bugs from Google shows that the spec-driven agent can deliver a 9.8 percentage points ($p = 0.0352$) improvement in bug detection rate and a 2.5 percentage point ($p = 0.0034$) improvement in branch coverage, compared to a traditional test generation agent baseline. Using LLM-as-a-Judge, we further show that test suites generated by the spec-driven agent are superior to the baseline and human-authored tests in 77.8% and 56.7% of the cases, respectively, and demonstrated improvements on following best practices, readability, and edge-case coverage.
TDD-Agent is introduced, which operationalizes the test-driven development paradigm for code generation and improves not only code correctness but also the effectiveness of the generated tests, yielding higher pass rates, coverage, and mutation scores, suggesting that tests can serve as evolving reasoning artifacts rather than fixed validators.
Hong Yu, Ke-Shen Li, Jiakun Li et al.· 0 citations
These findings suggest that while AI agents excel at rigorous boundary testing, they lack the “environmental awareness” needed to write stable, hermetic tests.
Preet Jhanglani, Zeel Desai, Vidhi Kansara et al.· Annual International Compute...· 0 citations
Automated program repair (APR) agents are transitioning from research benchmarks to developer workflows, yet they still begin with bug reports written for human developers. While decades of research have established what makes a good bug report for humans (e.g., steps to reproduce, stack traces), it remains unclear whether these features transfer to LLM-based agents. We study this question in two analyses. First, we use statistical modeling to examine associations between 27 bug-report features and repair success across 433 SWE-bench Verified issues attempted by 87 repair agents. We find that fix suggestions, reproduction scripts, repository source code, and localization info are associated with higher resolution likelihood, while longer reports are associated with lower odds. Second, we conduct controlled ablations across 2 models and 17 problem-statement mutations on SWE-bench Pro, varying the information available to an agent while holding the underlying task fixed. We remove or isolate selected bug-report content, delete fault-localization cues, and test structural changes that flatten lists or remove section headers. We find that both models depend on localization cues and expected behavior, and that structural changes alone can reduce solve rates, even without removing any content. The two models diverge in how they handle missing information: Qwen searches more widely and can exhaust its turn budget, while Gemma commits to a plausible interpretation early and patches on it. Our findings indicate that a good bug report for an agent overlaps with, but is not identical to, a good report for a human: agents benefit most from concrete, executable, and well-localized information, whereas some qualities long emphasized for human readers, such as natural language steps to reproduce and readable descriptions, contribute little or even correlate with lower success.
Lara Khatib, N. Mathews, M. Nagappan et al.· 2 citations· ⚡1
This paper constructs a large-scale dataset of agent applications, tools, and tests, and manually label 2,572 test methods from 240 modules, and derives a taxonomy of 23 testing patterns across test fixtures, data, objectives, and assertions, and characterize tests by level.
Rangeet Pan, Tyler Stennett, Divya Sankar et al.· 1 citation
This work proposes ExplainBench, a benchmark to automatically evaluate explanations from coding agents, based on the intuition that informative explanations should enable an LLM to correctly answer questions, allowing quantitative comparison of explanation quality between agents.
Zhiyuan Pan, Sungmin Kang, Imam Nur Bani Yusuf et al.· 0 citations
AI coding agents increasingly submit complete pull requests (PRs) with minimal human intervention, shifting software development from AI-assisted to autonomous workflows. As these agents become more prevalent, ensuring the code they generate is adequately tested, by existing tests or by tests the agents write, is critical to preventing regressions, yet little is known about testing in agentic PRs. To address this gap, we analyze 4882 agent-generated PRs from the AIDev dataset (532 Java and 4350 Python PRs) produced by five coding agents. We study (i) how often agents include test changes and (ii) how well covered are code changes by existing and agent-written tests. Agents include test changes in only 49.6% of PRs that change code under test files. Existing tests provide an incomplete safety net: they cover 61.5% of agents'changed executable lines in Java and only 27.0% in Python, where 64.8% of PRs have no changed line executed by any existing test. Agent-written tests improve coverage over existing tests, but only in a minority of PRs: 35.9% of Java and 22.5% of Python Code + Tests PRs show a coverage gain. Across both languages, error-handling constructs (e.g., try and catch blocks) are the most consistently under-tested, with miss rates reaching 86.0% in Java and 81.0% in Python. These findings motivate coverage-aware development practices, coverage feedback loops for coding agents, and evaluation benchmarks that measure test quality to better help agents reliably test their own code.
A. Dipongkor, Talank Baral, Wing Lam et al.· 0 citations