AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18754v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 06:21:13 GMT
• Title: AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents
• Abstract summary: LLM agent failures are difficult to debug because the step where an error surfaces is often not the one that caused it.<n>We present Agent DebuggerX, an open-source framework that organizes debug as a closed loop of Detect, Attribute, Recover, and Rerun.<n>At its core, Deep Debugger performs multi-turn root-cause diagnosis through global trajectory understanding.
• Score: 83.37969790806069
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM agent failures are difficult to debug because the step where an error surfaces is often not the one that caused it. Existing observability tools replay execution traces but provide little support for identifying the root cause or translating diagnosis into recovery. We present AgentDebugX, an open-source debugging framework that organizes debugging as a closed loop of Detect, Attribute, Recover, and Rerun. At its core, DeepDebug performs multi-turn root-cause diagnosis through global trajectory understanding, structure-guided investigation, and cross-examination. On the Who and When benchmark, DeepDebug achieves the best strict attribution accuracy among the evaluated methods on both tested open-weight backbones, reaching 28.8 percent exact agent-and-step accuracy on qwen3.5-9b versus 21.7 percent for the strongest single-pass baseline. On GAIA, DeepDebug repairs 13 of 73 failed tasks in a single rerun, compared with 4 to 6 for three decoupled self-correction baselines, improving overall accuracy from 55.8 percent to 63.6 percent. AgentDebugX exposes this workflow through a Python library, CLI, web console, and installable agentic skill, and provides an opt-in Error Hub for sharing scrubbed failure-diagnosis-repair bundles and reusing them as debugging memory.

Related papers

• ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents [68.42713285082912]
  Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue.<n>We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it.<n>The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:53:37Z)
• SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents [56.400332595452966]
  We introduce SearchAuditBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures.<n>SearchAuditBench comprises 1,243 failed trajectories, averaging 73.1 messages and 65.1K tokens, collected from eight open-weight models on five deep-search benchmarks.<n>We propose SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T09:09:00Z)
• CUADebug: Diagnosing and Repairing Computer-Use Agent Failures [65.56066380320107]
  Computer-use agents (CUAs) operate real desktop and web interfaces through screenshots, mouse and keyboard actions, and stateful UI feedback.<n>Unlike text-only agents, CUA failures arise from coupled visual perception, grounding, low-level interaction, task reasoning, and environment dynamics.<n>We introduce CUA Debug, a framework for diagnosing and repairing CUA failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T13:59:45Z)
• Where Do Deep-Research Agents Go Wrong? Span-Level Error Localization in Agent Trajectories [51.22051230894794]
  Evaluation based on final answers shows whether an agent succeeds, but not which parts of the trajectory make the answer unreliable.<n>We collect 2,790 real trajectories from two agent frameworks, three backbone models, and three benchmarks, convert raw logs into semantic spans, and annotate harmful error spans through expert review.<n>We propose DRIFT, a claim-centric auditing framework that tracks agent claims, checks their support in trajectory evidence, and marks spans where unsupported or conflicting claims affect the answer path.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T10:50:26Z)
• DebugRepair: Enhancing LLM-Based Automated Program Repair via Self-Directed Debugging [20.747648291211338]
  DebugRepair is a self-directed framework for automated program repair.<n>It improves patch refinement with intermediate runtime evidence.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance against 15 approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T10:11:59Z)
• Precise Debugging Benchmark: Is Your Model Debugging or Regenerating? [31.082688278576356]
  We introduce the Precise Benchmark framework, which automatically converts any coding dataset into a benchmark with precision-aware evaluation.<n>We define two novel metrics, edit-level precision and bug-level recall, which measures how many necessary edits are made and how many bugs are resolved.<n>Experiments show frontier models, such as GPT-5.1-Codex and DeepSeek-V3.2-Thinking, achieve unit-test pass rates above 76% but exhibit precision below 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T09:08:23Z)
• TRAJEVAL: Decomposing Code Agent Trajectories for Fine-Grained Diagnosis [23.834704102474927]
  Code agents can resolve GitHub issues, yet when they fail, current evaluation provides no visibility into where or why.<n>We introduce TRAJEVAL, a diagnostic framework that decomposes agent trajectories into three interpretable stages.<n>We validate that these diagnostics are predictive, achieving model-level Pass@1 prediction within 0.87-2.1% MAE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T05:27:03Z)
• Outrunning LLM Cutoffs: A Live Kernel Crash Resolution Benchmark for All [57.23434868678603]
  Live-kBench is an evaluation framework for self-evolving benchmarks that scrapes and evaluates agents on freshly discovered kernel bugs.<n> kEnv is an agent-agnostic crash-resolution environment for kernel compilation, execution, and feedback.<n>Using kEnv, we benchmark three state-of-the-art agents, showing that they resolve 74% of crashes on the first attempt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T19:06:15Z)
• DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [48.971606069204825]
  DoVer is an intervention-driven debug framework for large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems.<n>It augments hypothesis generation with active verification through targeted interventions.<n>DoVer flips 18-28% of failed trials into successes, achieves up to 16% milestone progress, and validates or refutes 30-60% of failure hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T09:23:48Z)
• Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures [62.196870049524364]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise in solving complex, multi-step tasks.<n>They amplify vulnerability to cascading failures, where a single root-cause error propagates through subsequent decisions.<n>Current systems lack a framework that can comprehensively understand agent error in a modular and systemic way.<n>We introduce the AgentErrorTaxonomy, a modular classification of failure modes spanning memory, reflection, planning, action, and system-level operations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T18:20:27Z)
• SBEST: Spectrum-Based Fault Localization Without Fault-Triggering Tests [17.90798133817018]
  This study investigates the feasibility of using stack traces from crash reports as proxies for fault-triggering tests in Spectrum-Based Fault localization.<n>We propose SBEST, a novel approach that integrates stack trace information with test coverage data to perform fault localization when fault-triggering tests are missing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T15:15:52Z)

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.