Constraint Decay: The Fragility of LLM Agents in Backend Code Generation

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? Backend services provide a controlled but realistic substrate for this evaluation. Their APIs expose application-level executable semantics, and deployed behavior can be checked deterministically against an OpenAPI contract through black-box HTTP interactions. We introduce BackendForge, a benchmark of 56 contract-defined backend generation tasks rewritten from real open-source applications. Given a visible specification and an OpenAPI contract, an LLM must generate a Dockerized service that is built, deployed, and evaluated only through HTTP tests. To strengthen evaluation without introducing hidden requirements, BackendForge uses a test agent and a code agent to co-evolve the test oracle and reference service, where the test agent proposes specification-grounded backend tests and the code agent repairs the reference implementation. Although the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, succeeds on 55.4% of tasks under the base oracle, it succeeds on only 28.6% under the final oracle. This gap suggests that current LLMs can implement many local API behaviors, but still struggle to produce complete backend services.

Large-language-model code generation has shifted from single-shot prompting to multi-agent orchestrations - analyst, coder, tester, and debugger pipelines - and is evaluated almost exclusively on functional correctness. Whether these architectures also affect the structural complexity of the code they produce, and which orchestration layers carry the cost, remains largely unexamined: prior work has documented prompt-level effects on code complexity, but the architecture-level question is open. We compare six widely-used multi-agent configurations (Basic, AC, ACT, Debugger, AC+Debugger, ACT+Debugger) under two models from the GPT-4o family across all 164 HumanEval tasks - 1,968 paired observations - using the five RADON complexity metrics (SLOC, cyclomatic complexity, and Halstead Volume, Difficulty, and Effort). We apply a paired non-parametric statistical pipeline (Friedman omnibus, Wilcoxon signed-rank post-hoc with Holm correction, Kendall's $W$ and matched-pairs rank-biserial effect sizes) in both all-completions and passing-only conditions. The six architectures collapse into two indistinguishable complexity clusters separated by a 50-130% gap, the same partition in both models and under both conditions; among the architectural layers, the analyst-coder split inflates complexity, the runtime debugger does not - and on the analyst-coder background actively deflates it - and the tester re-inflates it. The heavy cluster's additional complexity buys no pass@1 advantage: the leanest architectures match or beat the heaviest on accuracy. Architectural elaboration in LLM code generation should therefore be justified by measured benefit on the dimensions that matter, not assumed.

LLM-generated code often compiles, passes tests, and appears correct, yet breaks once deployed. The root cause is frequently structural rather than logical. A generated endpoint references configuration keys never declared in the project, an import targets a package that does not exist in any registry, or a new route omits the authentication guard applied to every sibling endpoint. Each patch is locally valid but globally incoherent, and standard CI toolchains rarely surface these failures. As LLM-powered coding tools see widespread adoption, this blind spot poses a growing risk to software quality. We call this the \textbf{patchwork problem}. This paper formalizes structural coherence as consistency invariants over graph representations of repository artifacts, including import, call, dependency, configuration, schema, resource, control-flow, and routing graphs, and introduces an eight-category failure taxonomy distinguishing defects specific to LLM generation from those merely amplified by it. We present a hybrid verification framework that delegates to mature static analysis tools where they already excel and deploys purpose-built detectors for cross-cutting invariants underserved by existing toolchains, targeting provable constraint violations rather than heuristic pattern matching. Empirical evaluation across two frontier models under four prompting strategies reveals that the vast majority of structural failures evade type checking, testing, and SAST entirely, and that failure patterns diverge qualitatively between models in ways that challenge model-agnostic mitigation strategies. External validation on real-world AI-generated repositories confirms that these failures are not artifacts of controlled experimentation but are prevalent wherever LLMs write code with minimal human oversight.