Automated Code Refactoring

Autonomous codebase refactoring requires coding agents to restructure working software while strictly preserving externally observable behavior and prioritizing execution performance and compute efficiency over stylistic preference. Existing benchmarks: refactoring benchmarks assess functional correctness while overlooking runtime regressions, whereas code performance benchmarks target isolated micro-kernels that ignore codebase-scale complexity. We observe that refactoring scale is governed by the scope of the observable contract, the caller-visible interface fixing behavioral invariants while freeing private implementations for optimization. Building on this insight, we introduce FrontierRefactor, a benchmark of 60 qualified engineering tasks spanning four scales, from computational kernels to full repositories, across in-place optimization and cross-language rewriting. Evaluating frontier coding agents through a reference-free cascaded protocol across 1,080 execution runs reveals that correctness and speedup are largely decoupled: 41.2% of submissions satisfy functional equivalence yet fail to deliver verified performance improvements, with 19.3% suffering performance regressions and 21.9% trapped in measurement noise. Refactoring paradigms reveal orthogonal engineering bottlenecks: while cross-language rewrites gain speedups from native compilation after passing functional checks, agents struggle with contract fidelity, with pass rates dropping from 65.0% on modules to 32.6% at package scale; conversely, in-place optimization reliably preserves behavioral contracts at 86.5% but rarely achieves acceleration without physical performance profiling. Trajectory analysis shows that agents fall victim to uncalibrated micro-benchmarking illusions, an operational blind spot that multi-turn execution-timing feedback directly resolves, raising strict success from 16.0% to 40.0%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to refactor source files, but file-local evaluations do not reveal changes to contracts, dependencies, or caller assumptions affecting repository adoption. To address this gap, we conduct 1,500 generation attempts across 150 production files from 15 open-source Java repositories, five LLM configurations, and two dependency-aware generation conditions: single-prompt refactoring and LangGraph-based multi-agent refactoring. Of these attempts, 1,455 yield complete candidates eligible for analysis. We evaluate these candidates using local changes, repository-facing structural indicators, detected caller impact, the behavioural-equivalence indicator, and available test evidence, and categorize them as Low-risk, Review-needed, High Contract/Dependency Risk, or Inconclusive. The results show that 1,365 candidates (93.8%) are classified as High Contract/Dependency Risk, whereas 106 (7.3%) have at least one detected broken downstream caller and 290 (19.9%) have a false behavioural-equivalence indicator; only eight satisfy the Low-risk criteria. Within the reason-covered subset, the High-risk rate decreases under more conservative dependency-delta thresholds, while 60 of the 65 candidates with conclusive targeted-test outcomes pass, including 50 classified as High risk. Paired analyses of 705 complete pairs identify no statistically significant generation-condition difference in the principal risk indicators, although model configurations differ in specific detected risk channels. These findings suggest that practitioners should treat LLM-generated refactorings as candidates requiring staged repository-level verification, while future research should validate screening and extraction precision and strengthen compilation, behavioural, and coordinated multi-file verification.

Linters are widely used in code maintenance and real-time IDE editing to surface lint alerts related to performance, style, error-prone, and other patterns in source files. However, existing code benchmarks do not explicitly evaluate linter-guided file refactoring, where models must reduce lint alerts in source files with correct initial functionality while satisfying functionality preservation. We introduce LintEval, a multilingual benchmark for linter-guided file refactoring across C++, Python, and Java, comprising 13,061 programs with correct initial functionality and 171,662 lint alerts extracted using language-specific linters. LintEval jointly evaluates functionality preservation, lint alert reduction, new alert avoidance, and edit minimality. Experiments reveal a persistent trade-off: closed-source commercial models reach up to 90.4% Reduction@P but achieve only 67.1%-68.3% Pass@1, while several open-source small models show low or negative Reduction@P. A controlled fine-tuning study further shows that supervision format matters: refactoring-oriented SFT raises Qwen2.5-Coder-7B Reduction@P from 24.7% to 76.0%. LintEval enables controlled evaluation of models that improve source files under functionality preservation.

Repository-scale refactoring requires coding agents to propagate a single change across many interdependent files without altering program behavior, yet to our knowledge no existing harness isolates the design choices that determine agent success on this task. We present RefactorPlatform, an open-source evaluation harness that holds the environment fixed and varies each design axis explicitly: model backbone (via OpenRouter and GitHub Copilot CLI), execution regime (baseline, retrieval-augmented, and multi-agent), and prompt specificity. Each run executes in an isolated workspace with live terminal streaming, per-task logging of tokens, diffs, and transcripts, AST-based verification, and exportable telemetry for audit and reproduction. Demonstrating the platform on 100 multi-file RefactorBench tasks across four model families, we illustrate the analyses it supports: AST-aware chunking outperforms naive token-window chunking by 25-30 percentage points (pp) across prompt modes, whereas naive retrieval falls below the retrieval-free baseline; a lean retrieval-augmented single agent (86%) beats the sub-agent configuration we evaluated (66%) on matched tasks with no task passing under delegation that fails under retrieval; and retrieval's accuracy gains absorb its token overhead, leaving cost per successful refactoring unchanged. RefactorPlatform is open-sourced to make refactoring-agent evaluation reproducible and auditable.

Organizations often develop and maintain portfolios of related applications: independently deployable codebases that share substantial domain logic, interface patterns, or operational conventions. As LLM coding agents are increasingly used to generate and maintain such software, a naive application-by-application workflow duplicates shared logic across codebases and allows prolonged agentic maintenance to accumulate verbosity, dead code, and structural erosion. We introduce the Super Library Agent problem, where an agent sequentially generates a portfolio of N related applications while maintaining a shared Super Library of reusable cross-application components. A minimal sequential scaffold can in principle extract shared code and migrate applications to the evolving library, but in practice suffers from low extraction recall and fragile dependency migration. We address these failures with candidate-guided extraction over code chunk summaries, pre-extraction codebase consolidation, and context-aware migration using extraction traces and call-graph information. Across WebGen-Bench and PaperBench, our method preserves application functionality while significantly reducing redundancy and token footprint (verbosity, token length) over zero-shot, and avoiding the structural erosion introduced by naive library construction, with additional reductions in LOC and MDL. Our code is available at https://github.com/sbigstar0310/super-library-agent.

Modern software systems accumulate technical debt over decades of development, which makes migration expensive and largely manual. As coding agents become increasingly capable at bug fixing, can they autonomously perform such migrations? Existing benchmarks cannot answer this question because they evaluate only behavioural correctness, not whether the migration actually occurred. This leads an easy hack: agents copy the original implementation to make tests pass. We call this Blindness. To address this problem, we introduce SWE Refactor Bench, a benchmark comprising 20 whole-repository migrations, covering 4 kinds of technical debt. A three-stage evaluation protocol measures both migration completeness and behavioural correctness. (1) Migration Audit verifies that the migration occurred. (2) Behavioural Tests measure correctness with a fixed test suite. (3) Agentic Verification uses 6 independent coding agents to generate targeted tests for hidden behavioural differences. Across 520 runs from 8 frontier models and 26 model-effort configurations, only 28 of 520 runs ($5.4\%$) pass all three stages, 13 of the 20 tasks receive no accepted solution, and the best model (claude-opus-5) scores $47.0/100$. Migration completeness and behavioural correctness are distinct abilities: a few runs preserve behaviour by skipping the migration and are stopped at Migration Audit; most attempt it and break behaviour, and are stopped at Behavioural Tests. Agents cannot deliver a perfect migration: among the 340 runs that pass Migration Audit, $58\%$ reach $99\%$ of the fixed checks, yet only $26\%$ reach $100\%$. Agent capability differs across migration categories: agents score $31.4$ on build toolchain rewrites but only $5.6$ on language rewrites. Together, these findings position SWE Refactor Bench as a rigorous testbed for developing coding agents for reliable whole-repository migrations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated code refactoring. However, generated changes must reduce targeted quality problems without introducing new issues or altering behaviour-relevant code structures. We introduce REFINE (Refactoring with Evidence-aware Flow for Integrated ageNtic Execution), a tool-agnostic, evidence-aware multi-agent approach for generating Java file-level refactoring candidates. REFINE combines static-analysis-guided smell identification, smell-informed planning, LLM-based transformation, automated re-analysis, preservation checks, and structured reporting. We evaluate REFINE on 450 Java files from 15 open-source systems, producing 1,350 model-pass outputs using OpenAI GPT-5.5, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8. REFINE reduces detected code smells by 68.26%, 72.79%, and 68.49% across the three configurations, respectively, with the strongest reductions observed for major smells. A matched 150-file direct-prompt baseline shows that REFINE achieves a higher median code-smell reduction with smaller edits and fewer public-method removals. However, broader quality improvements are inconsistent, and preservation checks reveal residual risks, including assert/fail-call changes and public-method removal. Therefore, REFINE outputs should be treated as refactoring candidates requiring compilation, testing, dependency analysis, and human review before adoption in repository- or system-level settings.

This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural refactoring by an AI coding agent under a specification-first protocol, with no human review of the generated code and no pre-existing oracle to validate the target behaviour. The task, dismantling a central invariant across a large interdependent codebase, was assessed by the author as effectively infeasible through incremental refactoring, the kind of change that conventionally calls for a rewrite instead. Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully. The system is a 717,725-line production TypeScript application across 3,648 files. The task required dismantling a core lifetime invariant: the guarantee that a UI panel remains open for the duration of an AI request. The target behaviour was that a streaming generation survives the closing of its panel and can be reattached, on reopening, to the same live stream with no loss or duplication. The protocol: formal specification by the agent, 14 refinement cycles auditing that specification against the source code, atomic implementation, a compile/test feedback loop, then 17 verification cycles auditing the code against the frozen specification. Across 31 audit passes, 201 defects were corrected before any human executed the program. The convergence criterion was empirical: two consecutive verification passes returning zero findings. The change touched 189 files (31 new); with the extraction phase, the two commits total 288 files, 34,770 insertions, 16,422 deletions. Across the first and roughly thirty later sessions, the software behaved as specified, no bug observed. Elapsed: three days; cost: USD 2,430. The full specification and raw session logs, 1,500+ pages in French, are published as evidence, allowing inspection of the process and submission to a language model for consistency checking.

As AI coding agents take on increasingly complex, long-horizon software engineering tasks, existing benchmarks are rapidly saturating and their evaluation quality has come under serious scrutiny: a recent audit found that nearly 60% of unsolved SWE-bench Verified instances contain flawed tests -- either overly narrow tests that reject correct solutions or overly broad tests that check unstated requirements -- and that frontier models can verbatim reproduce gold patches from training data. Code refactoring, which requires coordinated, behavior-preserving changes across many files, offers a substantially harder and more realistic test of agent capability, yet remains underserved by current benchmarks. We introduce SWE-Bench ProMax, an expert-curated, multilingual code refactoring benchmark of 170 instances drawn from real commits across seven programming languages (Python, Java, TypeScript, Go, C, C++, and Rust). Every instance undergoes rigorous, multi-stage curation that directly addresses the quality problems identified in prior benchmarks: issue descriptions are rewritten from scratch to provide precise, unambiguous specifications, and test suites are manually reviewed to remove overly narrow and overly broad tests. Tasks with insufficient complexity or limited cross-file scope are filtered out, yielding a benchmark of challenging, large-scale refactoring tasks that average 11.4 modified files and 261.6 lines of code per instance, substantially exceeding the scale of existing benchmarks. Experiments with frontier models under two agent scaffolds show that the best model achieves only 41.2% resolve rate, confirming that SWE-Bench ProMax presents a meaningful and unsaturated challenge for current AI coding agents. Our benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/swe-bench-promax/SWE-Bench-ProMax.

Code refactoring aims to enhance the internal structure of source code without affecting its functional behavior. The recent advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential for automating software engineering tasks, such as code refactoring. However, the refactorings produced by LLMs often introduce subtle errors, leading to functional behavior changes and failed unit tests, which limit their practical adoption. To address the limitations of LLM-generated refactorings, we analyze the root causes of their failures and develop the RefactorAssist agent to improve the functional correctness of LLM-generated refactorings. To this end, we use 10 open-source Java projects with their native test suites and manually evaluate why LLM-generated refactorings fail unit tests. We then design an agentic approach that leverages unit-test logs, error explanations, project context retrieval, and code diffs to guide the iterative refactoring. Our findings show that the main reasons for failure are context misunderstanding/hallucination (24.3%), incorrect or inconsistent renaming (15.3%), adding new functionality or variables (13.7%), code incompleteness (11.3%), syntax and structural errors (9.7%), edge cases not handled (9%), improper type handling (8.7%), and variables outside scope (8%). To make our approach cost-effective, RefactorAssist first applies a static repair step for missing imports, unbalanced brackets, and compilation errors without LLMs. For remaining failures, RefactorAssist incorporates error logs and code diffs, achieving up to a 70.8% repair rate on the remaining failures and a 94.2% cumulative pass rate under the best-performing configuration. These results indicate that static checks and test-guided, context-aware agentic repair can increase the reliability of LLM-generated refactorings, bringing them closer to practical integration within developer workflows.

High-Level Synthesis (HLS) provides a fast path from concepts to silicon, but converting real-world software into synthesizable HLS code remains challenging due to restrictive language support and the gap between software and hardware programming practices. Existing automated and LLM-based refactoring approaches partially address this problem, yet they often lack flexibility, struggle to scale, and incur high computational costs. We introduce AgRefactor, an LLM-based multi-agent workflow for refactoring software into HLS-compatible programs. AgRefactor incorporates a self-evolving memory system that accumulates and retrieves factual and strategic knowledge across tasks, improving robustness and efficiency on unseen programs. To reduce cost and enhance scalability, it integrates automated refactoring tools, enabling agents to balance LLM-driven rewrites with efficient tool-based transformations. On 9 out of 11 challenging real-world benchmarks, which are 5-10x longer than the most complex cases studied in prior work, AgRefactor outperforms or matches the state-of-the-art automated refactoring tool and a strong LLM-based baseline built on the same framework backbone. Further agentic performance optimization yields a 6.51x geometric mean speedup over the SoTA pragma tuning tool and a 1.20x speedup over optimized open-source designs with less than 20% extra resources. AgRefactor is fully-automated and open-sourced.

As AI agents increasingly contribute to code development and maintenance, there is still limited empirical evidence on the quality and risk characteristics of their changes in real-world projects, particularly for refactoring-oriented contributions. It remains unclear how agent-authored refactoring edits affect maintainability, code quality, and security once merged into GitHub repositories. To address this gap, we conduct an empirical study of Python refactoring pull requests (PRs) from the AIDev dataset. We analyze agentic refactoring PRs using PyQu, an ML-based quality assessment tool for Python, to quantify changes across five quality attributes, and we complement PyQu with domain-independent static analysis (Pylint and Bandit) to measure code quality and security issues before and after each change. Our results show that, on average, agentic commits improve a quality attribute in 22.5% of the studied changes, with usability improving most frequently (36.5%). At the same time, 24.17% of modified files introduce new Pylint issues predominantly convention level violations such as long lines-while 4.7% introduce new Bandit findings. From the observed diffs, we derive a taxonomy of 24 recurring change operations and map them to the lint and security findings they most commonly affect. Despite these mixed outcomes, developer acceptance is high: 73.5% of the analyzed PRs are merged, including cases that introduce new lint or security findings, often alongside the removal of existing issues. Overall, these findings highlight both the promise and current limitations of agentic refactoring, and motivate stronger tool-in-the-loop quality and security gating for AI-driven development workflows.

We present Lean Refactor, a plug-and-play retrieval-augmented agentic framework for multi-objective, controllable, and version-robust refactoring of Lean proofs. LLM-generated proofs are notoriously correct-but-verbose and brittle across library versions, yet existing refactoring works overlook three practical challenges: 1) Lean refactoring is natively multi-objective (proof length, compilation cost, and version compatibility are often in tension); 2) Lean repositories have fragile compatibility, whereas LLM releases are unaware of Lean/Mathlib versions; 3) Training-based pipelines require repeated fine-tuning with each new LLM release, scaling neither with model churn nor with Lean's release cycle. Lean Refactor steers a frozen agentic LLM with retrievals from a curated database of multi-objective refactoring strategies, each densely annotated with metadata such as supported Lean/Mathlib versions and expected compilation-cost reduction. Experiments show over $70\%$ token-level compression on competition benchmarks, over $20\%$ on research repositories, and up to $60\%$ compilation-time reduction, outperforming prior work and Claude Code. Version-filtered retrieval further improves compression on the target Lean version, and refactored miniF2F proofs exhibit stronger zero-shot version transfer to future Lean releases than their unrefactored counterparts.

Architectural code smells erode software maintainability and are costly to repair manually, yet unlike localized bugs, they require cross-module reasoning about design intent that challenges both developers and automated tools. While large language model agents excel at bug fixing and code-level refactoring, their ability to repair architectural code smells remains unexplored. We present the first empirical evaluation of LLM agents on architectural code smell repair. We contribute SmellBench, a task orchestration framework that incorporates smell-type-specific optimized prompts and supports iterative multi-step execution, together with a scoring methodology that separately evaluates repair effectiveness, false positive identification, and net codebase impact. We evaluate 11 agent configurations from four model families (GPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) on 65 hard-severity architectural smells detected by PyExamine in the Python project scikit-learn, validated against expert judgments. Expert validation reveals that 63.1% of detected smells are false positives, while the best agent achieves a 47.7% resolution rate. Agents identify false positives with up to $κ= 0.94$ expert agreement, but repair aggressiveness and net codebase quality are inversely related: the most aggressive agent introduces 140 new smells. These findings expose a gap between current LLM capabilities in localized code transformations and the architectural understanding needed for cross-module refactoring. SmellBench provides reusable infrastructure for tracking progress on this underexplored dimension of automated software engineering. We release our code and data at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19247588.

Many software systems originate as prototypes or minimum viable products (MVPs), developed with an emphasis on delivery speed and responsiveness to changing requirements rather than long-term code maintainability. While effective for rapid delivery, this approach can result in codebases that are difficult to modify, presenting a significant opportunity cost in the era of AI-assisted or even AI-led programming. In this paper, we present a case study of using coding models for automated unit test generation and subsequent safe refactoring, with proposed code changes validated by passing tests. The study examines best practices for iteratively generating tests to capture existing system behavior, followed by model-assisted refactoring under developer supervision. We describe how this workflow constrained refactoring changes, the errors and limitations observed in both phases, the efficiency gains achieved, when manual intervention was necessary, and how we addressed the weak value misalignment we observed in models. Using this approach, we generated nearly 16,000 lines of reliable unit tests in hours rather than weeks, achieved up to 78% branch coverage in critical modules, and significantly reduced regression risk during large-scale refactoring. These results illustrate software engineering's shift toward an empirical science, emphasizing data collection and constraining mechanisms that support fast, safe iteration.

LLM coding agents can generate working code, but their solutions often accumulate complexity, duplication, and architectural debt. Human developers address such issues through refactoring: behavior-preserving program transformations that improve structure and maintainability. We investigate whether agents (i) can execute refactorings reliably and (ii) identify the refactorings that human developers actually chose in real codebases. To this end, we construct CodeTaste, a benchmark mined from large multi-file open-source refactorings. To score solutions, we combine repository test suites that measure functional correctness with tailored static checks that verify removal of undesired and introduction of desired code patterns using dataflow reasoning. Our results show a clear gap: agents perform well at implementing refactorings that are specified in detail, but often fail to discover the human refactoring choices when given a focus area for changes. A propose-then-implement decomposition improves alignment, and selecting the best-aligned proposal before implementation can yield further gains. CodeTaste provides an evaluation target and a potential preference signal for aligning coding agents with human refactoring decisions in realistic codebases. We release the benchmark, leaderboard, and code.