Abstract
Agentic-AI based software development offers the promise of faster completion of the software, greater programmer efficiency, and more reliable code. The question is how can we verify these claims in an objective way? In this project, we attempted to answer this question based on three practices. First, we applied a typical best-practices agentic AI workflow for software development. Second, our target programs were ten well-known, release-quality human-written Linux utility programs so that we could compare the AI-generated code against a concrete ground truth. Third, we based our measure of reliability on a widely used testing technique, fuzz random testing. For this testing, we used both classic black box, generational testing and more modern coverage guided (gray box, mutational) testing using AFL++. We found that the AI-generated versions of the utility programs were typically as reliable - often more reliable - than the latest human-generated versions of these programs. While the AI-generated versions did have some failures, they were less common than the code from the standard repositories. Interestingly, the AI-generated code was less likely to have failures such as memory errors (such as buffer overflows) but more likely to have hangs such as infinite loops. In addition, we verified that generating robust and reliable software using agentic AI requires careful practice and human supervision. The quality of the code is highly dependent on the prompts and skills used, and how the human directing the process responds. We also demonstrated that using agentic AI workflow for software development (with its prompts and skills) can become a specification of the code that leads to cost-effective sustainability of the software.
Explore similar work
Jul 2, 2026cs.SE
Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software. This study tested that assumption directly. Ninety independent agent runs built the same application, a real time retrospective board, from one detailed specification, each scored on a fixed 14 criterion functional rubric (42 point maximum) and a visual quality review. The runs spanned several model generations, two agent harnesses, two reasoning effort levels, a testing tool, and two design oriented prompts. Capability tier dominated: frontier models clustered near the ceiling while a low cost local model fell to 24 to 37 points. A criterion level analysis revealed what run totals conceal. Container deployment was the dominant defect, failing first try in 44 percent of runs, with its failure rate shifting sharply across model generations while mean totals moved less than a point. The testing tool raised cost by 42 to 68 percent without improving functional score or reliability, even on interface visible criteria. Raising reasoning effort from High to xHigh lifted first try perfect runs from 28 percent to 89 percent and cut corrective prompts about five fold, for 9 to 29 percent more cost. A design oriented prompt raised visual quality, 4.5 versus 3.0 on a 5 point scale, without lifting function, and a one paragraph paraphrase of its directive reproduced the entire lift. The practical lesson is to match the fix to the failure: most first run failures came from weak reasoning, which a stronger model or more effort prevents, not from visible flaws a checking tool would catch.
Achint Mehta
Jun 21, 2026cs.SE
Agentic coding harnesses - such as Agent-Skills, Superpowers, and Agent-Rigor - are increasingly deployed to augment underlying LLMs for real-world software engineering tasks. Existing benchmarks evaluate these agents almost exclusively on outcome correctness: whether generated code passes tests or resolves issues. We argue that this outcome-only lens is insufficient: an agent that arrives at a correct solution through reckless trial-and-error, without planning, verification, or graceful recovery, is fundamentally less reliable than one that follows sound engineering discipline. We introduce RigorBench, the first benchmark designed to measure process discipline in AI coding agents. RigorBench evaluates these harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity. A composite RigorScore aggregates these dimensions into a single metric via a weighted sum. We curate a suite of 30 tasks spanning five categories - Plan-Then-Build, Verify-Or-Die, Doom Loop Gauntlet, Know When to Fold, and Don't Break the Build-and evaluate leading harnesses in a controlled with/without experimental design against baseline coding assistants. Our results show that structured process discipline not only improves process quality scores by an average of 41% but also raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%, providing the first quantitative evidence that how agents code matters as much as what they produce. We release the full benchmark, scoring rubrics, and trajectory analysis tools as open-source artifacts.
Meher Bhaskar Madiraju, Meher Sai Preetam Madiraju
Apr 19, 2026cs.SE
Practitioners have reported a directional pattern in AI-assisted code generation: AI-generated code tends to fail quietly, preserving the appearance of functionality while degrading or concealing guarantees. This paper introduces the Reward-Shaped Failure Hypothesis - the proposal that this pattern may reflect an artifact of optimization through human feedback rather than a random distribution of bugs. We define failure truthfulness as the property that a system's observable outputs accurately represent its internal success or failure state. We then present AIRA (AI-Induced Risk Audit), a deterministic 15-check inspection framework designed to detect failure-untruthful patterns in code. We report results from three studies: (1) an anonymized enterprise environment audit, (2) a balanced 600-file public corpus pilot, and (3) a strict matched-control replication comparing 955 AI-attributed files against 955 human-control files. In the final replication, AI-attributed files show 0.435 high-severity findings per file versus 0.242 in human controls (1.80x). The effect is consistent across JavaScript, Python, and TypeScript, with strongest concentration in exception-handling-related patterns. These findings are consistent with a directional skew toward fail-soft behavior in AI-assisted code. AIRA is designed for governance, compliance, and safety-critical systems where fail-closed behavior is required.
William M. Parris