Can AI Agents Generate Microservices? How Far are We?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09004v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 22:48:41 GMT
• Title: Can AI Agents Generate Microservices? How Far are We?
• Abstract summary: We assess 144 generated across 3 agents, 4 projects, 2 prompting strategies, and 2 scenarios.<n>Minimal prompts outperformed detailed ones in incremental generation, with 50-76% unit test pass rates.<n>Clean state generation produced higher integration test pass rates (88%), indicating strong API contract adherence.
• Score: 1.108199702093187
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have advanced code generation, but their use for generating microservices with explicit dependencies and API contracts remains understudied. We examine whether AI agents can generate functional microservices and how different forms of contextual information influence their performance. We assess 144 generated microservices across 3 agents, 4 projects, 2 prompting strategies, and 2 scenarios. Incremental generation operates within existing systems and is evaluated with unit tests. Clean state generation starts from requirements alone and is evaluated with integration tests. We analyze functional correctness, code quality, and efficiency. Minimal prompts outperformed detailed ones in incremental generation, with 50-76% unit test pass rates. Clean state generation produced higher integration test pass rates (81-98%), indicating strong API contract adherence. Generated code showed lower complexity than human baselines. Generation times varied widely across agents, averaging 6-16 minutes per service. AI agents can produce microservices with maintainable code, yet inconsistent correctness and reliance on human oversight show that fully autonomous microservice generation is not yet achievable.

Related papers

• Building a Process-Modeling Tool using Agentic AI: An Experience Report on PM4Py-UCM [1.3660182208844809]
  This paper reports on the AI-assisted construction of PM4Py-UCM, an open-source tool that mines Use Case Map (UCM) models from event logs.<n>We characterize the development record itself, composed of 18 agent sessions (374 human turns and 10,328 tool actions over 65 hours), 151 commits, 20 releases, and a test suite grown from 108 to 691 test functions.<n>Up to version 0.7.4, fixes outnumber features 2.3:1, with 18% of turns for correcting agent errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T20:27:32Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• ProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? [59.40748183470308]
  ProgramBench measures the ability of software engineering agents to develop software holisitically.<n>End-to-end behavioral tests are generated via agent-driven fuzzing.<n>Models favor monolithic, single-file implementations that diverge sharply from human-written code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T09:17:02Z)
• RepoGenesis: Benchmarking End-to-End Microservice Generation from Readme to Repository [52.98970048197381]
  RepoGenesis is the first multilingual benchmark for repository-level end-to-end web microservice generation.<n>It consists of 106 repositories (60 Python, 46 Java) across 18 domains and 11 frameworks, with 1,258 API endpoints and 2,335 test cases verified.<n>Results reveal that despite high AC (up to 73.91%) and DSR (up to 100%), the best-performing system achieves only 23.67% Pass@1 on Python and 21.45% on Java.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T13:19:20Z)
• Impact of Code Context and Prompting Strategies on Automated Unit Test Generation with Modern General-Purpose Large Language Models [0.0]
  Generative AI is gaining increasing attention in software engineering.<n>Unit tests constitute the majority of test cases and are often schematic.<n>This paper investigates the impact of code context and prompting strategies on the quality and adequacy of unit tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T11:23:17Z)
• Evaluating LLMs on Sequential API Call Through Automated Test Generation [10.621357661774244]
  StateGen is an automated framework designed to generate diverse coding tasks involving sequential API interactions.<n>We construct StateEval, a benchmark encompassing 120 verified test cases spanning across three representative scenarios.<n> Experimental results confirm that StateGen can effectively generate challenging and realistic API-oriented tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T03:52:51Z)
• From Reproduction to Replication: Evaluating Research Agents with Progressive Code Masking [48.90371827091671]
  AutoExperiment is a benchmark that evaluates AI agents' ability to implement and run machine learning experiments.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art agents and find that performance degrades rapidly as $n$ increases.<n>Our findings highlight critical challenges in long-horizon code generation, context retrieval, and autonomous experiment execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T15:39:20Z)
• SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraints [59.645885492637845]
  SOPBench is an evaluation pipeline that transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions.<n>Our approach transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions and requires agents to call these functions based on natural language SOP descriptions.<n>We evaluate 18 leading models, and results show the task is challenging even for top-tier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:53:02Z)
• Commit0: Library Generation from Scratch [77.38414688148006]
  Commit0 is a benchmark that challenges AI agents to write libraries from scratch.<n>Agents are provided with a specification document outlining the library's API as well as a suite of interactive unit tests.<n> Commit0 also offers an interactive environment where models receive static analysis and execution feedback on the code they generate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T18:11:30Z)
• AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testing [42.681170697805726]
  This paper introduces AutoPenBench, an open benchmark for evaluating generative agents in automated penetration testing. We present a comprehensive framework that includes 33 tasks, each representing a vulnerable system that the agent has to attack. We show the benefits of AutoPenBench by testing two agent architectures: a fully autonomous and a semi-autonomous supporting human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T08:24:15Z)
• MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation [96.71370747681078]
  We introduce MLAgentBench, a suite of 13 tasks ranging from improving model performance on CIFAR-10 to recent research problems like BabyLM. For each task, an agent can perform actions like reading/writing files, executing code, and inspecting outputs. We benchmark agents based on Claude v1.0, Claude v2.1, Claude v3 Opus, GPT-4, GPT-4-turbo, Gemini-Pro, and Mixtral and find that a Claude v3 Opus agent is the best in terms of success rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T04:06:12Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.