LLM-based Automated Architecture View Generation: Where Are We Now?

Software architecture documentation is essential for system comprehension, yet it is often unavailable or incomplete. While recent LLM-based techniques can generate documentation from code, they typically address local artifacts rather than producing coherent, system-level architectural descriptions. This paper presents a structured process for automatically generating system-level architectural documentation directly from GitHub repositories using Large Language Models. The process, called CIAO (Code In Architecture Out), defines an LLM-based workflow that takes a repository as input and produces system-level architectural documentation following a template derived from ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, SEI Views & Beyond, and the C4 model. The resulting documentation can be directly added to the target repository. We evaluated the process through a study with 22 developers, each reviewing the documentation generated for a repository they had contributed to. The evaluation shows that developers generally perceive the produced documentation as valuable, comprehensible, and broadly accurate with respect to the source code, while also highlighting limitations in diagram quality, high-level context modeling, and deployment views. We also assessed the operational cost of the process, finding that generating a complete architectural document requires only a few minutes and is inexpensive to run. Overall, the results indicate that a structured, standards-oriented approach can effectively guide LLMs in producing system-level architectural documentation that is both usable and cost-effective.

LLMs have substantially improved software engineering yet real-world development requires architectural understanding. Such understanding is prohibitively expensive to label manually and impossible to verify through tests alone. We propose an agentic judging pipeline using a strong LLM as a scalable proxy for expert architectural evaluation, comprising two judges: the Architecture Complexity Judge (ACJ), which estimates codebase-specific architectural understanding a task demands, and the Architecture Quality Judge (AQJ), which evaluates patch conformance to repository-specific architectural conventions via source-grounded rubrics. Fine-tuning Qwen3-8B/14B/32B on 3,360 curated instances achieves resolved rates of up to 27.2% on SWE-bench Verified - up to 540% over the base model and 256% over unfiltered fine-tuning. Meanwhile, the trained models achieve strong cross-language generalization and consistent improvements in architectural patch quality.

Context: Architectural Design Decisions (ADDs) capture the rationale behind the structure and evolution of software systems but are rarely documented explicitly, and are often hidden inside source code commits. Recovering them is important for Architectural Knowledge Management (AKM). Problem: Extracting ADDs from commits is challenging due to their implicit and unstructured nature. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in understanding code and text, yet their effectiveness for this task remains underexplored. Study: We present a preliminary study using four LLMs (Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek R1, Kimi K2, Qwen3) with zeroshot and fewshot prompting on 30 developer-written ADDs from open-source projects. We score outputs with ROUGE-L, BLEU, METEOR, and BERTScore, and one author manually reviews the Gemini outputs. Results: All models reach a BERT-F1 above 0.81, and fewshot prompting improves alignment (Gemini BERT-F1: 0.828 to 0.847). However, the generated ADDs are often too long, implementation-focused, and miss the rationale behind the decision. This highlights opportunities for architecture-aware LLM systems and automated AKM.