cs.SEOct 15, 2026

Agentic Interpretation: Harness-Governed Evidence Construction for Software Agents

Authors: Yifeng He, Yanjun Wang, Siwei Cui, Aritra Sengupta, Murali Krishna Ramanathan

Organizations: University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA · AWS AI Labs, USA

Abstract

Software agents answer behavioral questions about code, such as whether a patch passes tests or which lines caused a failure. These tasks require repository-wide evidence, yet most scaffolds leave intermediate findings in free-form trajectories, making them hard to reuse and easy to disconnect from final answers. We present Agentic Interpretation (AgInt), a framework for harness-governed evidence construction. The model proposes typed records, while a deterministic harness admits, grades, and persists them, reports unresolved requirements, and licenses answers under task-specific rules. The resulting certificate gives the model persistent external state and leaves an auditable decision record. Formally, append-only certificate states form a grounding lattice ordered by record inclusion, where each admitted record extends the state by union. We evaluate AgInt with four models on SWE-bench-Live and DeepSWE for patch acceptance and Defects4J and GitBug-Java for fault localization. AgInt outperforms the plain agent and Agentic Code Reasoning on all reported patch-acceptance metrics and ranks responsible lines higher while inspecting fewer irrelevant lines in fault localization. For GLM-5, reject-class F1 rises from 0.256 to 0.543 on SWE-bench-Live, All@1 rises from 0.140 to 0.400 on Defects4J, and wasted inspected lines fall from 31.5 to 11.7 on GitBug-Java. A matched-template control separates the mechanism: the persistent scaffold drives most fault-localization gains, while the certificate body and gate govern patch-acceptance calibration. With execution licensed, AgInt produces harness-reproduced witnesses for 293 of 475 null-dereference candidates versus 253 for a matched shell agent, and 62 of 117 resource-leak candidates versus 58. Across reported efficiency measurements, it uses 35% fewer executions and reduces cost per candidate by 59%.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. Coherence Collapse: Diagnosing Why Code Agents Fail After Reaching the Right Code

    Mar 25, 2026Myeongsoo Kim, Dingmin Wang, Siwei Cui +6Agent Failure AnalysisAI Coding Agents

  2. SWE-Gate: Passing Functional Tests Is Not Enough for Software Engineering Agents

    Sep 3, 2026Xin He, Yanlin Wang, Mingwei Liu +3Software Engineering AgentsAutomated Program Repair

  3. Humanize: Judgement Engineering for Agentic Coding

    Oct 6, 2026Sihao Liu, Ligeng Zhu, Zijian Zhang +6Multi-Agent CodingLLM Agent Orchestration