Software Delegation Contracts: Measuring Reviewability in AI Coding-Agent Work

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17099v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2026 05:53:27 GMT
• Title: Software Delegation Contracts: Measuring Reviewability in AI Coding-Agent Work
• Abstract summary: Prior work proposed the software delegation contract, covering the task, authority, returned work package, and acceptance context, as the unit of analysis for delegated coding work, but did not measure its effects.<n>This paper reports a controlled pilot study of explicit delegation contracts for coding agents.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI coding agents increasingly accept assigned software tasks, modify repositories under bounded authority, and return work packages for review. Prior work proposed the software delegation contract, covering the task, authority, returned work package, and acceptance context, as the unit of analysis for delegated coding work, but did not measure its effects. This paper reports a controlled pilot study of explicit delegation contracts for coding agents. We built a dependency-free TypeScript API task environment with seeded defects and documentation gaps, authored ten tasks across five families, and ran 64 agent executions across two model tiers under three conditions: a realistic issue-style prompt, an explicit delegation contract, and a contract with a required evidence bundle. Each run was scored with hidden acceptance tests, mutation checks, and scope analysis, then reviewed by three independent condition-blinded model-based reviewers using a fixed rubric, for 192 reviews. Explicit contracts did not improve objective task outcomes: all 64 runs passed hidden acceptance checks, with zero scope violations. They did improve reviewability. Evidence sufficiency improved in 22 of 30 paired comparisons and worsened in none (+0.83 on a 5-point scale, p < 0.0001, Cliff's delta = 0.66); reviewer ambiguity decreased (p = 0.035); changed-file lists, known-limitations sections, residual-risk sections, and reviewer checklists appeared mostly or only when demanded by the contract. Contracts cost +13% agent tokens and +38% wall-clock time, with larger effects for the weaker model tier. On these small tasks, delegation contracts bought reviewability rather than correctness.

Related papers

• Specification-first convergence with an AI coding agent: a case study of dismantling a core architectural invariant across 189 files in a 717k-line codebase with no test oracle and no human code review [0.0]
  This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural dismantling by an AI coding agent.<n>Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T15:35:48Z)
• SpecPath: Testing Coding Agents Across Contract-Equivalent Specification Histories [13.437222222971272]
  We identify specification-path sensitivity, a failure mode in which requirement histories that are equivalent in their final meaning lead the same agent system to produce behaviorally different programs.<n>We introduce SpecPath, a diagnostic evaluation that holds the repository, final contract, verifier, agent system, and execution budget fixed while changing only the revision path that leads to the contract.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T16:19:00Z)
• VASO: Formally Verifiable Self-Evolving Skills for Physical AI Agents [57.240036084348354]
  We introduce VASO, a framework for verification-guided self-evolution of robot skill contracts.<n>VASO verifies logically inconsistent skill contracts, then verifies plans induced by the skill against global and local temporal specifications.<n>On Clearpath Jackal and PX4 quadcopter tasks, VASO reaches 97.2% formal-specification compliance using fewer than 100 optimization samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T20:02:35Z)
• Handoff Debt: The Rediscovery Cost When Coding Agents Take Over Interrupted Tasks [0.0]
  Real software work is messier because tasks are interrupted, reassigned, reviewed, and resumed from partial states left by another agent or engineer.<n>We study this missing dimension through emphhandoff debt: the rediscovery cost imposed when a predecessor's work is opaque or incomplete.<n>Our takeover protocol interrupts a coding agent at deterministic handoff points, freezes the repository, and evaluates successor agents under four handoff views.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T20:40:38Z)
• Converted, Not Equivalent: Benchmarking Codebase Conversion via Observational Equivalence [56.25095230687242]
  Coding agents often over-trust their own local validation routines and declare success on artifacts that satisfy surface checks.<n>This problem is especially acute in conversion, where prior evaluation is outcome-driven.<n>Across blind conversion attempts, the best system reaches 26.7--28.9% overall pass rate despite Spec pass rates up to 91.1%.<n>This suggests that failures stem more from contract-misaligned self-validation than from limited budget or backbone strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T19:57:15Z)
• Security Is Relative: Training-Free Vulnerability Detection via Multi-Agent Behavioral Contract Synthesis [14.657771106188115]
  We propose Phoenix, a training-free multi-agent framework for vulnerability detection.<n>Phoenix decomposes detection into three stages: a Semantic Slicer, a Requirement Reverse Engineer, and a Contract Judge.<n>On PrimeVul Paired, Phoenix achieves F1 = 0.825 and Pair-Correct = 64.4%, surpassing RASM-Vul (F1 = 0.668) and VulTrial (F1 = 0.563)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T03:02:34Z)
• ClawArena: Benchmarking AI Agents in Evolving Information Environments [61.664633997138004]
  ClawArena is a benchmark for evaluating AI agents in evolving information environments.<n>Each scenario maintains a complete hidden ground truth while exposing the agent only to noisy, partial, and sometimes contradictory traces.<n> evaluation is organized around three coupled challenges: multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T17:55:23Z)
• Agent Behavioral Contracts: Formal Specification and Runtime Enforcement for Reliable Autonomous AI Agents [0.0]
  Agent Behavioral Contracts (ABC) is a formal framework that brings Design-by-Contract principles to autonomous AI agents.<n>ABC specifies Preconditions, Invariants, Governance policies, and Recovery mechanisms as runtime-enforceable components.<n>We implement ABC in AgentAssert, a runtime enforcement library, and evaluate on AgentContract-Bench, a benchmark of 200 scenarios across 7 models from 6 vendors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T18:42:56Z)
• One Signature, Multiple Payments: Demystifying and Detecting Signature Replay Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts [56.94148977064169]
  lacking checks on signature usage conditions can lead to repeated verifications, increasing the risk of permission abuse and threatening contract assets.<n>We define this issue as the Signature Replay Vulnerability (SRV)<n>From 1,419 audit reports across 37 blockchain security companies, we identified 108 with detailed SRV descriptions and classified five types of SRVs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T09:17:13Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Understanding Inconsistent State Update Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts [10.224761284656992]
  Inconsistent state update issues can arise for reasons such as unsynchronized modifications.<n>This paper conducts the first large-scale empirical study about inconsistent state update vulnerabilities.<n>We investigate 116 inconsistent state update vulnerabilities in 352 real-world smart contract projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T10:15:29Z)
• SolBench: A Dataset and Benchmark for Evaluating Functional Correctness in Solidity Code Completion and Repair [51.0686873716938]
  We introduce SolBench, a benchmark for evaluating the functional correctness of Solidity smart contracts generated by code completion models.<n>We propose a Retrieval-Augmented Code Repair framework to verify functional correctness of smart contracts.<n>Results show that code repair and retrieval techniques effectively enhance the correctness of smart contract completion while reducing computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T01:55:20Z)
• CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review [12.163258651539236]
  This work introduces tool, a novel multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) system for code review automation. CodeAgent incorporates a supervisory agent, QA-Checker, to ensure that all the agents' contributions address the initial review question. Results demonstrate CodeAgent's effectiveness, contributing to a new state-of-the-art in code review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T14:43:14Z)

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.