Code Refactoring

Railway foreign object detection (RFOD) is critical to safe railway operation, yet scarce real positive samples incompletely represent task-relevant variations in object scale, intrusion relation, railway scene, illumination, and adverse weather. Existing synthetic augmentation can improve RFOD detection, but its gains lack an explicit account of the task-relevant deficiencies complemented by the generated data. We therefore introduce RailSyn, a diagnosis-guided framework comprising a real-referenced Inspector and a requirement-aligned Generator. The Inspector constructs a variable-radius empirical cover from finite real observations to localize candidate completion regions and profile synthetic pools. The resulting audit identifies railway-context, intrusion-semantic, and visual-consistency requirements; the Generator addresses them through domain adaptation, agent-planned placement and physical contact relations, and plan-consistent conditional refinement. Using the Inspector, we further trace representation-space changes across generation variants; the complete system attains a local-shell occupation of $C_{gap}$ to 13.64%, which measures generated coverage of real-derived completion regions. Extensive experiments show AP50--95 gains of up to 4.9 points and consistent improvements across nine mainstream detectors, demonstrating broad cross-architecture utility.

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.

Coding-agent benchmarks increasingly cover long-horizon, end-to-end, and interactive development, but typically retain one requested outcome or a fixed change sequence. Sequential policies can process a pull-request (PR) queue one candidate at a time, but when queued PRs interact, maximizing safe delivery can require jointly deciding which changes to merge and in what order. We introduce BulkPR-Bench, an executable benchmark in which an agent must recover consequential PR relations and return a large safe subset in executable order under a rolling-release protocol. The suite contains 581 newly authored candidate PRs on frozen snapshots of 18 real repositories. Registered state-by-state repository execution, including hidden safety checks, validates the gold relation graph; an exact oracle then computes the largest safe subset. Our primary metric, Relational Delivery Score (RDS), scores safe delivery and correct rejection over relation groups from the realized merge trace; Global Safety-Gated Yield (Global-SGY) separately measures strict delivery of the realized whole-queue plan. Under the buffered primary protocol with batch size $K=32$, the three highest RDS estimates among the six models are 66.6%, 62.0%, and 57.9%, compared with 53.1% for the strongest sequential baseline. Only 8 of 324 model runs complete a queue exactly. Critical-relation recall ranges from 35.2% to 57.7%, and diagnostic runs supplied with the gold relations show substantial remaining headroom. Gains on relation groups therefore do not yet translate into dependable whole-queue governance.

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.

Recent advances in large language models and their rapid adoption across software engineering tasks have made Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding agents an integral component of modern software development workflows. While developers increasingly benefit from these coding agents, their impact on software quality remains insufficiently understood. In particular, how agentic contributions evolve across the software development lifecycle has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to characterize agentic pull requests (PR) in comparison to human generated PRs and to examine how their properties change across different stages of the development lifecycle. Using the AIDev dataset, we first analyze how differences in merge rates between agentic and human generated PRs vary over time. We then identify the types of development tasks where AI coding agents are predominantly applied and investigate how these task distributions evolve across development quarters. Finally, we compare a set of key characteristics of agentic and human generated PRs, focusing on their implications for software quality and their temporal dynamics. Overall, our findings provide an empirical and longitudinal perspective on the role of AI coding agents in software development, offering a more nuanced understanding of their benefits and limitations in real-world practices.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly leverage long-form reasoning to solve complex tasks, yet their reasoning processes can deviate from the provided context when evidence is incomplete, noisy, or conflicts with parametric knowledge. Existing grounding approaches either append citations after generation or encourage LLMs to retrieve evidence during reasoning, but they often fail to ensure that cited information is sufficient to support intermediate inferences and final answers. To address this limitation, we propose REFACT, an adaptive fact-restatement citation framework that enables LLMs to determine when contextual grounding is needed and selectively restate source facts at appropriate levels of detail for reliable reasoning. To facilitate adaptive citation during reasoning, REFACT first leverages a teacher LLM to construct high-quality citation-aware reasoning trajectories under diverse context conditions with varying evidence lengths, and then optimizes the student LLM through a two-stage SFT-to-RL framework. Experiments on LongBench, LV-Eval, and ConFiQA demonstrate that REFACT improves long-context question answering and counterfactual faithfulness while substantially reducing the number of reasoning tokens. Further analysis reveals that REFACT achieves higher evidence density by preserving more answer-relevant facts with fewer restatements, producing reasoning traces that are more concise yet better grounded. All code and data will be released via https://github.com/NEUIR/REFACT.

Distinguishing semantic-preserving commits from changing ones remains an open challenge in software repository mining. While existing approaches detect refactoring commits accurately, they cannot ensure that a commit is purely semantic-preserving, without any interleaving behaviour-changing modification. This limitation can impact several tasks, such as debugging, fault localisation, bug dataset construction, rollback analysis, and bug fixes backporting. To fill this gap, we propose SemaDiff, a novel approach for identifying semantic-preserving commits through behaviour-based analysis; comparison of similar test execution on pre- and post-commit versions. As code impacted by the refactoring is often hard to test and different accross both versions, we propose generating additional calling methods to that code, which serve as testing target. Given a commit, SemaDiff analyses the diff to identify modified code and extracts unchanged dependent code that calls it. It then generates an additional dependent class using a large language model to exercise the changed code in both versions, and automatically generates tests for the dependent code. This way, we obtain the same tests for the different code versions, enabling the behavioural-difference detection. The commit is classified as semantic-preserving only if all generated tests produce identical outcomes across the two versions. To evaluate SemaDiff, we construct and annotate manually a dataset of 183 commits, gathered from well-known open-source Java projects. The obtained results show that SemaDiff distinguishes accurately semantic-preserving from -- changing commits in about 76% of the cases, with a 100% precision in semantic-changing commit detection.

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.

AI coding agents are black boxes: we cannot inspect how they generate code, but we can inspect what they change. This distinction matters for search-based software engineering (SBSE), where techniques such as genetic improvement (in the performance-optimisation application we study) depend on mutation operators that reflect how code is actually transformed. Fewer than 1% of the 33,596 agent PRs in AIDev-pop target performance, making each case a rare window into otherwise opaque agent behaviour. We classify 1,254 performance-relevant diff hunks from 216 of these PRs, spanning five agent systems, against the 18-category syntactic mutation taxonomy of Even-Mendoza et al. (2025) using a dual-LLM intersection pipeline. Three categories dominate: name modification (37.0%), object creation (26.4%), and type change (22.7%), a profile markedly different from prior GI corpora where no change accounted for 84%. Each agent's deployed system commits to a distinctive mutation vocabulary, and each performance strategy activates a largely disjoint category subset. Agent identity and target strategy are therefore informative priors that narrow the effective SBSE operator space. Replication package: https://github.com/5uper6rain/ssbse-challenge-2026

We present a case study in reformalization, a variant of autoformalization in which the input proof is not natural language but a formal development in a different proof assistant. Concretely, we report three reformalizations of the Jordan Curve Theorem: from Mizar to Lean, from HOL Light to Lean, and from HOL Light to Agda. We analyse the results and identify pipeline design choices that matter for practical reformalization tasks.

Organizations rolling out agentic command line tools like Anthropic's Claude Code and GitHub's Copilot CLI need to know who will try them, who will keep using them, and whether the tools produce enough output to justify their cost. At organizational scale, token spend can run into millions of dollars annually, so misreading adoption, retention, or impact can make a rollout expensive without changing engineering velocity. Studying tens of thousands of engineers at Microsoft over its early-2026 rollout, we find that first use spread primarily through social networks, retention was associated more with engineers' coding activity than with demographics, and adopters merged roughly 24% more pull requests than they would have otherwise. We use merged pull requests as our proxy for output -- acknowledging that a merged PR is not the same as the value it delivers -- and the lift persists across our four-month window. These results suggest that CLI coding agents are neither uniformly adopted nor mere novelty effects and that organizations should treat visible peer use as central to rollout strategy.

For predictive models, the often-reported performance metrics are the loss and accuracy. In synchronous Brain- Computer Interface (BCI) systems, these metrics are informative for most BCI paradigms; however, for Event-Related Potential (ERP) applications the spelling rate, which measures the number of characters correctly selected is more important as it influences the estimation of information transfer rate (ITR) and any related metric measuring spelling performance. Moreover, ERP-based BCIs hold imbalanced data class distributions, which require reporting metrics that can handle the imbalance, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC). In this work, we study the correlation of the spelling rate with 13 metrics to identify which among them best reflect user spelling performance and how they are affected by trial repetition. The Results of two datasets (a private LARESI ERP dataset and the public OpenBMI ERP dataset) favor the Brier score, Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and the metrics that account for class imbalance in binary classification: ROC AUC, area under the Precision-Recall curve (PR AUC), Average Precision (AP), and partial AUC (pAUC). These findings encourage researchers and practitioners to report those metrics in ERP-based BCI experiments.

Large language models (LLMs) embedded in multi-turn agentic harnesses are reshaping software engineering (SWE), but routing every task to a frontier model is wasteful when many issues admit cheap fixes. Existing LLM routers operate on the task description alone, which inherits an information-theoretic Bayes-error floor in agentic settings: a similar issue can hide either a localized typo or a multi-module refactor, and the prompt does not separate the two. We introduce SWE-Router, a value-based temporal approach that lets a cheap model run for a few exploratory turns and reads the resulting partial trajectory before deciding whether to continue cheaply or to escalate to an expensive model. We provide a Bayes-optimality theorem showing that conditioning on the partial trajectory never harms routing and is strictly better whenever exploration is informative. Across the LLM pairs of weak and strong models spanning the contemporary cost--capability frontier, we show that SWE-Router greatly improves the cost efficiency of SWE tasks, while maintaining the majority of the performances of the stronger model. We additionally release a multi-LLM trajectory dataset which allows reproduction of our trajectory-level routing.

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.

Pooled across five AI coding agents, pull requests (PRs) with a human Co-Authored-By trailer merge less often than purely-autonomous ones (53.8% vs. 79.8%) -- yet this aggregate finding is a textbook Simpson's Paradox. Stratifying 33,596 PRs from the AIDev dataset by agent identity reverses the conclusion: Copilot and Devin show large positive within-agent gaps (+41.2 and +33.5 pp, both p<0.001), while Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex show small effects whose cross-sectional 95% CIs span zero. The paradox is driven entirely by agent composition: Codex, which dominates 64.9% of the dataset, achieves high merge rates while rarely using co-authorship. But Simpson's Paradox is only the first layer of a cascade of confounders: within-repo controls eliminate Devin's gap (+33.5 to +1.6 pp, p=0.73); a commit-count control further halves Copilot's within-repo gap (+36.2 to +24.4 pp); restricted to multi-commit PRs, the Copilot within-repo effect dissolves to +4.8 pp (p=0.59). No agent retains a clear co-authorship effect once both repository selection and PR structure are controlled. Our findings caution against reporting agent-pooled statistics without stratification and demonstrate that cross-sectional co-authorship associations are largely selection and PR-structure artefacts rather than evidence of a causal benefit.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support software development, but their practical usefulness in applied game-development settings remains underexplored, especially when generated code must be integrated into an existing game software system. This paper presents an exploratory empirical case study of GPT-4o in a custom Python/Pygame endless runner. The study examines six selected development tasks: three localized refactoring tasks and three tasks involving gameplay feature generation. The resulting implementations were evaluated using software metrics, unit tests, and manual gameplay assessments. In this case study, all three selected refactoring tasks were completed successfully in functional terms, whereas only one of the three selected gameplay feature generation tasks resulted in a correctly integrated feature. The findings suggest that, in this setting, GPT-4o handled localized transformations more reliably than tasks requiring new gameplay interactions across multiple existing systems. Given the exploratory single-case design, these results are best interpreted as indicative observations rather than as generalizable evidence of category-level model performance. Overall, the paper contributes a transparent case-based account of the opportunities and limitations of LLM-assisted refactoring and gameplay feature generation in an existing game software system.

We present Phoenix, a multi-agent LLM system that resolves GitHub issues from triage through pull-request creation, combining seven layered safety controls with a baseline-aware test evaluation strategy. Phoenix decomposes the work across six specialized agents. Planner, reproducer, coder, tester, failure analyst and Pull Request (PR) agent, all coordinated by a label-based GitHub webhook state machine. Every change is checked against a baseline test run before a pull request is opened. On a 24-instance slice of SWE-bench Lite. run on the production webhook path, Phoenix oracle-resolves 75% of instances with no pass-to-pass regressions on successful runs; this curated slice is not directly comparable to full-split leaderboard results, and we discuss the limits of the comparison. A complementary pilot on 42 real issues across 14 repositories yields 100% correctness preservation (CP; mean 122s on the hard tier). Manual inspection shows that about half of the resulting pull requests are well-targeted fixes. The other half place code at incorrect paths, a planner localization limitation we are addressing with retrieval. We also report the deployment failure modes (WAF filtering, token expiry, permission boundaries, flaky CI) that motivated each safety mechanism.

Autonomous coding agents now open millions of pull requests, yet large-scale studies find their PRs are produced faster but accepted less often - a coordination and trust gap that pull-request-level telemetry cannot explain. We argue the missing signal lives before the PR, in how concurrent agents claim, divide, and collide over shared work. We study this process through grite, our open-source coordination substrate that needs no central server and stores its records inside git itself, so its append-only, signed event log captures the coordination process directly. We show that (i) this shared substrate reduces duplicate and conflicting work at bounded overhead - the share of work that merely re-does a teammate's task falls from 78% to 0% while useful throughput more than triples; (ii) every agent's copy of the log converges to the same state with no write silently dropped, where a file-based tracker loses concurrent writes; and (iii) the log is a mineable artefact from which concrete failure modes - conflicting edits, lock starvation, redundant rediscovery, race-to-close - are automatically recoverable with provenance, several invisible in pull-request history. We release the dataset, harness, and mining toolkit.

While expert-validated "LLM + script" workflows deliver significant value, they remain static: they encode hard-won domain knowledge yet fail to adapt execution based on feedback. Existing agent research predominantly targets greenfield agents and synthetic benchmarks, leaving the migration of active legacy workflows unresolved. To bridge this gap, we present a reversible, Strangler-Fig migration path that refactors legacy workflows into composable, typed, and auditable stages. Central to this framework is a three-tier convertibility taxonomy (A/B/C), implemented as a routing stage within the system harness, which diagnoses a workflow's readiness and routes it accordingly.

Large language models can often close proof gaps in interactive theorem provers, but a verified theorem is not the same thing as a reusable library contribution. We study this distinction through a detailed case study: a semi-autonomous formalization of Grothendieck's vanishing theorem. The initial version compiles with no sorries, but an expert review found serious problems in definitions, theorem generality, file organization, and the API. We then ran a review-driven refactor and compression process and obtained a second expert review. The before-and-after comparison shows a sharp split: agents adapted well to local, mechanically checkable feedback, but remained weak at choosing definitions and designing APIs. We argue that autoformalization should be evaluated not only by closed sorries, but by whether the resulting formalization survives expert review.

AI coding agents are increasingly used to generate pull requests (PRs) that propose code fixes in software projects. From a first exploration of the AIDev dataset, we find that 46.41% of the fixes proposed by the agents Copilot, Devin, Cursor, and Claude are rejected. This represents a significant amount of wasted resources that require human reviews, verifications, and running tests and validations for fixes that are merely discarded. Our goal in this paper is to understand the failure modes of AI-agents, an understanding that is crucial for better integrating AI-agents as efficient teammates. In this paper, we conduct a qualitative study on a representative sample of 306 non-merged pull requests created or co-authored by the agents mentioned earlier, followed by a quantitative analysis of the reasons for rejection. Our qualitative findings identify 14 reasons divided into four high-level categories for rejecting AI-agent fixes. We observe that developers can reject fixes due to fixes whose implementation is incorrect (e.g., incomplete, wrong approach), fixes that do not pass the continuous integration (CI) pipelines and fail tests, fixes for which the agent is unable to perform the implementation (e.g., no code generated, sessions lost), and fixes whose priority is low. Our results shed light on the importance of better guiding the model at these levels: (1) proposing hints about the approach to follow for fixing an issue, (2) outlining constraints or limitations regarding the approaches that should not be taken, and (3) instructing the agent on how to validate the implementation through CI pipelines and without introducing a breaking change. Our results suggest the need for good prioritization of tasks so that generated fixes do not lead to wasted human review efforts or wasted agent resources (e.g., tokens, compute, or allowed number of requests).

AI-agents (e.g., GitHub Copilot) collaborate as teammates in different software engineering tasks, including code generation proposed through pull requests (Agentic-PRs). For better agent efficiency, developers create instruction files that guide the AI-agents, including how to navigate the project, locate the right components, run tests, respect best practices, and more. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the creation of these instructions and the performance of AI-agents in creating better pull requests, which have a higher chance of success (i.e., the merge rate), address more complex tasks (e.g., code churn), and require less effort to be merged (e.g., time to merge). To this end, we analyze 15,549 agentic PRs from 148 projects in the AIDev dataset. Using the three dimensions, we compare each project before and after the creation of the instruction files. We find that specifying instructions for AI-agents does not necessarily lead to better results. With the instruction files, 27.7% of the projects increased their merge rate by at least 20%, while 26.35% decreased it. The same observation is seen with the amount of changes (e.g., code churn, number of modified files) and with the efforts to merge an agentic PR (e.g., merge time and number of comments). From a first exploration, we find that projects that managed to increase their merge rate have substantially longer instruction files, which are also well structured into a higher number of sections and sub-sections. Our results motivate the need for research to assist practitioners in framing the development of instruction files as a software engineering activity (aka, \textbf{Instructions-as-Code}).

Effective skill grounding is essential for deploying reusable skills in embodied agents, as even minor embodiment or environmental differences can render an entire skill incompatible. This challenge is particularly pronounced in embodied settings, where agents must operate in dynamic, partially observable environments without access to large language models (LLMs). In this setting, reliance on LLMs is impractical, while small language models (sLMs) remain insufficient for the effective skill grounding required for reliable long-horizon control. We present RECENT, a refactoring-centric agent framework that enables efficient skill grounding with sLMs by decoupling skill semantics from embodiment- and environment-specific execution binding. By representing skills as executable code, RECENT preserves the semantic intent encoded in a skill's control structure while grounding it by modifying only execution bindings through localized refactoring, rather than regenerating code from scratch. We evaluate RECENT across diverse skill grounding scenarios spanning multiple robot embodiments in dynamic environments, demonstrating robust long-horizon performance when deployed with an sLM. Across all scenarios, RECENT achieves the best performance among sLM-based Code-as-Policies (CaP) methods and matches the task performance of LLM-based CaP.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in generating formal proofs, their outputs often remain less readable, modular, maintainable, and reusable than proofs in mature formal mathematics libraries. We argue that this gap stems in part from the compile-first objective implicit in most proof-generation pipelines, which encourages monolithic or ad hoc proof scripts rather than library-quality artifacts. Existing approaches to proof-quality improvement often rely on explicit, computable optimization objectives. In practice, however, the most tractable and experimentally validated objectives are largely length-based, while higher-level qualities such as readability, modularity, maintainability, and reusability are difficult to reduce to reliable automatic metrics. Instead of optimizing proof improvement against a single proxy metric, we take a process-guided approach inspired by human proof-refactoring workflows. We propose an agentic framework $\textbf{Proof-Refactor}$ that decomposes proof refactoring into four phases: extracting candidate proof fragments, designing helper declarations, formally proving the extracted and designed components, and repairing the original proof using the verified components. On generated Lean proofs from PutnamBench and Putnam2025, Proof-Refactor improves rubric-based refactoring scores over a strong Claude Code refactoring baseline, with the largest gains in signature quality and human readability. These results suggest that process-guided refactoring can improve proof structure without treating proof length as the primary objective.

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.

Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support in code review remains fragmented, with tools focusing on isolated tasks such as reviewer recommendation, PR description generation, or comment suggestion rather than the end-to-end PR review workflow. We address this gap by treating review effectiveness as an outcome of the full code review lifecycle rather than a single stage, proposing a framework that carries context across stage boundaries. We propose a future vision for code review in which reviewers transition from manual inspectors into supervisory operators of agents. In this vision, staged, AI-powered workflows aim to align the pace of code generation with shared understanding and accountable engineering. In this paper, we review the historical evolution of code review practices, identify challenges in traditional code review systems, and examine the shift driven by large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. We then present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality gates. Our framework spans five stages: PR Creation, PR Augmentation, Reviewer Selection, AI-Assisted Code Review, and PR Retrospective, with humans retained at key decision points to preserve judgment, accountability, and team-level understanding. Finally, we identify key adoption challenges and outline research directions for evaluation, governance, and responsible human-AI collaboration.

Context. Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) test suites accumulate duplicated step subsequences. Three published refactoring patterns are available (within-file Background, within-repo reusable-scenario invocation, cross-organisational shared higher-level step), but no prior work automates which recurring subsequences are worth extracting or which mechanism applies. Objective. Rank recurring step subsequences ("slices") by refactoring suitability (extraction-worthy), pre-map each to one of the three patterns, and quantify prevalence across the public BDD ecosystem. Method. Every contiguous L-step window (L in [2, 18]) in a 339-repository / 276-upstream-owner Gherkin corpus is keyed by paraphrase-robust cluster identifiers and counted under three scopes. SBERT / UMAP / HDBSCAN clustering recovers paraphrase-equivalent slices. Three authors label a stratified 200-slice pool against a written rubric. An XGBoost extraction-worthy classifier trained under 5-fold cross-validation is compared with a tuned rule baseline and two open-weight Large Language Model (LLM) judges. Results. The miner produces 5,382,249 slices collapsing to 692,020 recurring patterns. Three-author Fleiss' kappa = 0.56 (extraction-worthy) and 0.79 (mechanism). The classifier reaches out-of-fold F1 = 0.891 (95% CI [0.852, 0.927]), outperforming both the rule baseline (F1 = 0.836, p = 0.017) and the better LLM judge (F1 = 0.728, p = 1.5e-4). 75.0%, 59.5%, and 11.7% of scenarios carry a within-file Background, within-repo reusable-scenario, and cross-organisational shared-step candidate, respectively; the figures are stable under a sweep of the classifier decision threshold. Conclusion. Paraphrase-robust subscenario discovery yields a corpus-wide census of BDD refactoring candidates; pipeline, classifier predictions, labelled pool, and rubric are released under Apache-2.0.

Large language models (LLMs) accelerate software development but often exhibit instability, non-determinism, and weak adherence to development discipline in unconstrained workflows. While test-driven development (TDD) provides a structured Red-Green-Refactor process, existing LLM-based approaches typically use tests as auxiliary inputs rather than enforceable process constraints. We present an AI-native TDD framework that operationalizes classical TDD principles as structured prompt-level and workflow-level governance mechanisms. Extracted principles are formalized in a machine-readable manifesto and distributed across planning, generation, repair, and validation stages within a layered architecture that separates model proposal from deterministic engine authority. The system enforces phase ordering, bounded repair loops, validation gates, and atomic mutation control to improve stability and reproducibility. We describe architecture and discuss encoding software engineering discipline directly into prompt orchestration, which we think offers a promising direction for reliable LLM-assisted development.