Static Code Analysis

We present Code Broker, a multi agent system built on Google s Agent Development Kit ADK that analyses Python source code from individual files, local directory trees, or remote GitHub repositories and generates structured, actionable quality assessment reports. The system realises a hierarchical five agent architecture in which a root orchestrator coordinates a sequential pipeline agent that, in turn, dispatches three specialised agents concurrently a Correctness Assessor, a Style Assessor, and a Description Generator before synthesising their findings through an Improvement Recommender. Reports quantify four quality dimensions correctness, security, style, and maintainability on a normalised scale and are rendered in both Markdown and HTML for integration into diverse developer workflows. Code Broker fuses LLM based semantic reasoning with deterministic static analysis signals from Pylint, employs asynchronous execution with exponential backoff retry logic to improve robustness under transient API failures, and explores lightweight session memory for retaining and querying prior assessment context across runs. We frame this paper as a technical report on system design, prompt engineering, and tool orchestration, and present a preliminary qualitative evaluation on representative Python codebases of varying scale. The results indicate that parallel specialised agents produce readable, developer oriented feedback that complements traditional linting, while also foregrounding current limitations in evaluation depth, security tooling, large repository handling, and the exclusive reliance on in memory persistence. All code and reproducibility materials are publicly available: https://github.com/Samir-atra/agents_intensive_dev.

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.

Code deobfuscation is the task of recovering a readable version of a program while preserving its original behavior. In practice, this often requires days or even months of manual work with complex and expensive analysis tools. In this paper, we explore an alternative approach based on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, where a large language model is guided through explicit, step-by-step reasoning tailored for code analysis. We focus on control flow obfuscation, including Control Flow Flattening (CFF), Opaque Predicates, and their combination, and we measure both structural recovery of the control flow graph and preservation of program semantics. We evaluate five state-of-the-art large language models and show that CoT prompting significantly improves deobfuscation quality compared with simple prompting. We validate our approach on a diverse set of standard C benchmarks and report results using both structural metrics for control flow graphs and semantic metrics based on output similarity. Among the tested models and by applying CoT, GPT5 achieves the strongest overall performance, with an average gain of about 16% in control-flow graph reconstruction and about 20.5% in semantic preservation across our benchmarks compared to zero-shot prompting. Our results also show that model performance depends not only on the obfuscation level and the chosen obfuscator but also on the intrinsic complexity of the original control flow graph. Collectively, these findings suggest that CoT-guided large language models can serve as effective assistants for code deobfuscation, providing improved code explainability, more faithful control flow graph reconstruction, and better preservation of program behavior while potentially reducing the manual effort needed for reverse engineering.

LLM API calls have become a standard programming primitive, but they create a program boundary that disrupts traditional dataflow analysis. A runtime value may be inserted into a natural-language prompt through a template placeholder, transformed opaquely by the LLM, and returned as code, JSON, or text consumed by downstream logic. Existing analyses such as taint analysis and program slicing require a dataflow summary that describes how a callee maps inputs to outputs; an LLM call provides no such summary, breaking analysis at what we call the NL/PL boundary. We introduce PRISM, the first reachability model for this boundary. PRISM abstracts the missing dataflow summary of an LLM call as placeholder-to-output reachability. Because the LLM's internal transformation is opaque, the only observable signal is the input-output relationship, which spans an unbounded range of behaviors. PRISM therefore uses a finite taxonomy grounded in quantitative information flow theory. It classifies placeholder-output behavior into 25 labels along two dimensions: information preservation and output modality. Each label yields a reachability predicate for a placeholder. The model is sound with respect to its labeling, with residual error bounded empirically. PRISM is dependable and effective. Independent models and human annotators assign its labels consistently (Fleiss' kappa >= 0.72), and the labels cover 8,119 real-world pairs, leaving no pair unclassifiable; the Good-Turing discovery probability is 0.09%. For taint analysis, PRISM nearly doubles the conservative baseline and outperforms a direct LLM baseline, achieving F1 = 81.7%. Across six real OpenClaw CVEs, it detects every vulnerable flow and confirms every patch (F1 = 100%). In backward slicing, it removes about a quarter of irrelevant code without discarding any true dependency.

Determining whether a program terminates is a central problem in computer science. Turing's Halting Problem established termination as undecidable, showing that no algorithm can universally determine termination for all programs and inputs. Hence, verification tools approximate termination, sometimes failing to prove or disprove; these tools rely on problem-specific architectures and are usually tied to particular programming languages. Recent advances in LLMs raise a natural question: To what extent can they reason about program termination? We evaluate frontier LLMs on a diverse set of C programs from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-Comp) 2025. Our results show that GPT-5 and Claude Sonnet-4.5 achieve scores comparable to top-ranked verification tools (with test-time scaling). However, while models often correctly infer whether programs terminate, they frequently fail to construct a witness as formal proof, revealing a gap between semantic recognition and symbolic proof generation. Performance further degrades as code length increases. Beyond witness automaton graphs, we introduce a divergence-precondition formulation that characterizes non-termination conditions as logical constraints. We hope these findings motivate future research on real-world termination benchmarks, neuro-symbolic approaches that combine LLMs with symbolic verification methods, and, more broadly, LLM reasoning on other undecidable problems.

Machine Learning (ML) pipelines encode quality-relevant decisions across data preparation, training, evaluation, and configuration code. Some recurring source-level quality problems in these pipelines, known as ML code smells, may not cause immediate failures but can harm reproducibility, robustness, efficiency, or maintainability. Detecting ML code smell occurrences is challenging because the decisive evidence is often non-local, spanning helper functions, wrappers, imports, control-flow, and data-flow relations. We present SpecDetect4ML, a static analyser that operationalises 22 ML code smells using CPG views with project-level resolution. We evaluate it on 890 Python ML-based systems comprising more than 20M LOC and a system-level recall benchmark over the complete ML-relevant source subset of 10 selected systems. Under identical ML code smell specifications, CPG-based reasoning raises recall from 68.62% to 88.14% compared with AST-only analysis, while keeping CPG precision comparable at 90.32%. These results show that project-level static reasoning expands the detectable portion of non-local ML code smell occurrences, while configuration-dependent and runtime-only occurrences remain outside our source-only static claims.