Groundability, Not Scale Alone: When Weak Reviewers Can Audit Strong Coding Agents

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.

Online-judge verdicts and the datasets and benchmarks built on them are treated as ground truth for evaluating and training large language models for code. Yet prior audits have sounded a warning: official suites accept buggy submissions. These audits, however, stop at the warning and offer no practical remedy. Our remedy has two parts: an off-the-shelf coding agent, serving as a test-suite auditor, both builds adversarial test suites to expose what official suites miss and supplies these suites where no official suite exists; a certification chain determines whether each agent-flagged submission is genuinely buggy without relying on the official judge: multiple independently written accepted solutions agree on the expected output for every test, brute-force solutions settle disagreements, and a per-problem validator certifies each failing input legal. One such agent identifies 589 verified accepted-but-buggy submissions among AtCoder's 20,375 audited accepted submissions; extending the same certification to all five agents yields a union floor of 906 such submissions. Five agents, scored separately, each stay within 1.7pp of official-suite coverage on logic bugs those suites catch. On post-cutoff Codeforces problems with no available official suites, the same test-building method leads all five reproduced baselines at every tested input budget. Where an official suite exists, the agent audits suite adequacy instead of assuming it; where none exists, agent suites catch the most buggy submissions among methods we reproduced and tested.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.