AI-Assisted Unit Test Writing and Test-Driven Code Refactoring: A Case Study

Code refactoring aims to enhance the internal structure of source code without affecting its functional behavior. The recent advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential for automating software engineering tasks, such as code refactoring. However, the refactorings produced by LLMs often introduce subtle errors, leading to functional behavior changes and failed unit tests, which limit their practical adoption. To address the limitations of LLM-generated refactorings, we analyze the root causes of their failures and develop the RefactorAssist agent to improve the functional correctness of LLM-generated refactorings. To this end, we use 10 open-source Java projects with their native test suites and manually evaluate why LLM-generated refactorings fail unit tests. We then design an agentic approach that leverages unit-test logs, error explanations, project context retrieval, and code diffs to guide the iterative refactoring. Our findings show that the main reasons for failure are context misunderstanding/hallucination (24.3%), incorrect or inconsistent renaming (15.3%), adding new functionality or variables (13.7%), code incompleteness (11.3%), syntax and structural errors (9.7%), edge cases not handled (9%), improper type handling (8.7%), and variables outside scope (8%). To make our approach cost-effective, RefactorAssist first applies a static repair step for missing imports, unbalanced brackets, and compilation errors without LLMs. For remaining failures, RefactorAssist incorporates error logs and code diffs, achieving up to a 70.8% repair rate on the remaining failures and a 94.2% cumulative pass rate under the best-performing configuration. These results indicate that static checks and test-guided, context-aware agentic repair can increase the reliability of LLM-generated refactorings, bringing them closer to practical integration within developer workflows.

This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural refactoring by an AI coding agent under a specification-first protocol, with no human review of the generated code and no pre-existing oracle to validate the target behaviour. The task, dismantling a central invariant across a large interdependent codebase, was assessed by the author as effectively infeasible through incremental refactoring, the kind of change that conventionally calls for a rewrite instead. Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully. The system is a 717,725-line production TypeScript application across 3,648 files. The task required dismantling a core lifetime invariant: the guarantee that a UI panel remains open for the duration of an AI request. The target behaviour was that a streaming generation survives the closing of its panel and can be reattached, on reopening, to the same live stream with no loss or duplication. The protocol: formal specification by the agent, 14 refinement cycles auditing that specification against the source code, atomic implementation, a compile/test feedback loop, then 17 verification cycles auditing the code against the frozen specification. Across 31 audit passes, 201 defects were corrected before any human executed the program. The convergence criterion was empirical: two consecutive verification passes returning zero findings. The change touched 189 files (31 new); with the extraction phase, the two commits total 288 files, 34,770 insertions, 16,422 deletions. Across the first and roughly thirty later sessions, the software behaved as specified, no bug observed. Elapsed: three days; cost: USD 2,430. The full specification and raw session logs, 1,500+ pages in French, are published as evidence, allowing inspection of the process and submission to a language model for consistency checking.

Autonomous codebase refactoring requires coding agents to restructure working software while strictly preserving externally observable behavior and prioritizing execution performance and compute efficiency over stylistic preference. Existing benchmarks: refactoring benchmarks assess functional correctness while overlooking runtime regressions, whereas code performance benchmarks target isolated micro-kernels that ignore codebase-scale complexity. We observe that refactoring scale is governed by the scope of the observable contract, the caller-visible interface fixing behavioral invariants while freeing private implementations for optimization. Building on this insight, we introduce FrontierRefactor, a benchmark of 60 qualified engineering tasks spanning four scales, from computational kernels to full repositories, across in-place optimization and cross-language rewriting. Evaluating frontier coding agents through a reference-free cascaded protocol across 1,080 execution runs reveals that correctness and speedup are largely decoupled: 41.2% of submissions satisfy functional equivalence yet fail to deliver verified performance improvements, with 19.3% suffering performance regressions and 21.9% trapped in measurement noise. Refactoring paradigms reveal orthogonal engineering bottlenecks: while cross-language rewrites gain speedups from native compilation after passing functional checks, agents struggle with contract fidelity, with pass rates dropping from 65.0% on modules to 32.6% at package scale; conversely, in-place optimization reliably preserves behavioral contracts at 86.5% but rarely achieves acceleration without physical performance profiling. Trajectory analysis shows that agents fall victim to uncalibrated micro-benchmarking illusions, an operational blind spot that multi-turn execution-timing feedback directly resolves, raising strict success from 16.0% to 40.0%.