AI-Augmented Closed-Loop Quality Engineering: A Reference Architecture for Continuous Software Quality Intelligence

Multi-agent AI systems show promise for automating software engineering tasks, yet existing approaches suffer from coordination overhead, quality control gaps, and limited human oversight. We introduce SPOQ (Specialist Orchestrated Queuing), a methodology combining three innovations: (1) wave-based topological dispatch that computes parallel execution waves from task dependency graphs; (2) dual validation gates applying quality metrics before execution (planning validation) and after (code validation) to reduce rework cycles; and (3) Human-as-an-Agent (HaaA) integration, where a human specialist participates in decomposition and can be consulted during execution. SPOQ uses a three-tier agent hierarchy (Opus workers, Sonnet reviewers, Haiku investigators) to optimize cost-quality tradeoffs. We evaluate SPOQ through four experiments. Experiment 1: wave dispatch approaches the critical-path lower bound (ratio 1.03--1.11, speedup up to 14.3x); on a 2-slot local backend it delivers a stable 1.4x speedup. Experiment 2: SPOQ improves planning coverage from 93.0 to 99.75, eliminates cyclic plans, and lifts parallelism from 31.0 to 75.25. Experiment 3: dual validation reduces defects from 0.34 to 0.20 per task and lifts test pass rate from 91.25% to 99.75%. Experiment 4: human review reduces residual defects from 0.47 to 0.03 per task. Results are replicated on a locally hosted open-weights model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B), verifying gains are attributable to orchestration rather than any specific model. A longitudinal study across 17 repositories, 8,589 commits, 1,822 tasks, and 13,866 tests (99.87% pass rate) provides ecological validation.

Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue. Agent-generated tests can encode incomplete or incorrect behavioral targets; when the same trajectory writes both the patch and the test, their errors can agree and create false confidence. We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it. The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests. Both roles use Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B as the backbone and are trained separately. In Learn to Test, the Test agent learns to produce behaviorally valid tests that distinguish correct from incorrect patches. In Test to Improve, the Repair agent learns both direct task resolution and feedback-guided revision. On SWE-bench Verified, test quality determines whether feedback helps: holding the base Repair agent fixed, tests from the base Test agent reduce resolved rate from a no-test baseline of 61.2% to 57.3%, whereas tests from GPT-5.6-sol raise it to 65.3%. Role-specific post-training raises the Qwen Test agent's Base-to-Gold success from 22.2% to 62.2%; composing the two post-trained Qwen agents reaches 72.6%, an 11.4-point gain over the original no-test baseline without stronger-model or Oracle feedback at evaluation time. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/MSR-Orchard/execcritic.

Software engineering increasingly involves making high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, using signals from code, field data, and socio-technical processes. Recent AI-driven support (e.g., anomaly detection, predictive analytics, AIOps, as well as LLM-based agents) has amplified engineers' ability to detect patterns and synthesize content and recommendations, but many critical questions are interventional or counterfactual: What is the expected impact of changing a load-balancing strategy? Would an outage have been avoided under a different release plan? Correlational models answer "what tends to co-occur"; they struggle to answer "what would happen if we act." We propose Causal Software Engineering (CSE) as a future paradigm in which causal models and causal reasoning systematically inform activities across the software lifecycle, augmenting existing practices with explicit assumptions, uncertainty-aware effect estimates, and counterfactual diagnosis. We outline (i) a causal-first workflow view spanning development and operations, (ii) a staged roadmap for tools and organizational adoption, and (iii) an evaluation and benchmark agenda for measuring progress.