Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17177v2
• Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 19:41:11 GMT
• Title: Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation
• Abstract summary: Spec-Driven Test Generation instructs an agent to first reason about -- and explicitly document -- code pre-conditions, post-conditions, and undefined behaviors.<n>This intermediate semi-formal specification acts as a cognitive scaffold to guide subsequent test generation.
• Score: 4.061618191574875
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-based agents are increasingly used for coding tasks, where they have outperformed many classical approaches and scaled to repository-level tasks, such as test generation. However, when directly prompted to generate tests, these agents can fail to reason about the code and its underlying contracts, thereby missing edge cases and behavioral boundaries that affect test quality. To address this limitation, we propose Spec-Driven Test Generation, where we instruct an agent to first reason about -- and explicitly document -- code pre-conditions, post-conditions, and undefined behaviors. This intermediate semi-formal specification acts as a cognitive scaffold to guide subsequent test generation. Our evaluation on production bugs from Google shows that the spec-driven agent can deliver a 9.8 percentage points ($p = 0.0352$) improvement in bug detection rate and a 2.5 percentage point ($p = 0.0034$) improvement in branch coverage, compared to a traditional test generation agent baseline. Using LLM-as-a-Judge, we further show that test suites generated by the spec-driven agent are superior to the baseline and human-authored tests in 77.8% and 56.7% of the cases, respectively, and demonstrated improvements on following best practices, readability, and edge-case coverage.

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)
• TDD-Agent: Test-Driven Reasoning for Code Generation [12.09256800328452]
  Existing approaches use generated tests as static post-hoc validators.<n>We introduce TDD-Agent, which operationalizes the test-driven development paradigm for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T15:52:04Z)
• Beyond Test Presence: Assessing the Quality and Robustness of Agent-Generated Tests in Open-Source Projects [2.9713899640333348]
  Integrating AI-powered coding agents into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery pipelines has fundamentally altered how software verification is conducted.<n>While these agents successfully automate the test generation, current evaluation benchmarks largely focus on pass-rates rather than the intrinsic quality of the generated tests.<n>We compare 204,673 test artifacts which comprises of 24,941 human-authored files and 179,732 agent-generated files; sourced from the AIDev dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T18:40:24Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration for Unit Test Generation via Human-Testing-Inspired Workflows [18.32804849870551]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred a surge of research into automated unit test generation.<n>We propose TestAgent, an LLM-based test generation approach that emulates human testing practices via a multi-agent collaboration mechanism.<n>TestAgent achieves 97.46% execution rate, 92.34% line coverage, 90.24% branch coverage, and 83.69% mutation score on six Java projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-10T05:16:54Z)
• What to Test Next: Interpretable Coverage Gap Discovery in Driving VLMs [52.50210189669399]
  Driving vision-language models (VLMs) must accurately understand scenes across diverse conditions defined by Operational Design Domains (ODDs)<n>We propose SliceScorer, a deterministic scoring rule for missing-slice recommendation.<n>We show that SliceNav surfaces high-risk coverage gaps more effectively than prior slice-discovery methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T03:18:01Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• Are Benchmark Tests Strong Enough? Mutation-Guided Diagnosis and Augmentation of Regression Suites [49.16055123488827]
  Insufficiently strong test suites can admit plausible yet semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported success rates.<n>We introduce STING, a framework for targeted test augmentation that uses semantically altered program variants as diagnostic stressors.<n>STING produces 1,014 validated tests spanning 211 instances and increases patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8% and 9.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T01:13:40Z)
• Test-Driven AI Agent Definition (TDAD): Compiling Tool-Using Agents from Behavioral Specifications [0.0]
  Test-Driven AI Agent Definition (TDAD) is a methodology that treats agent prompts as compiled artifacts.<n>We evaluate TDAD on SpecSuite-Core, a benchmark of four deeply-specified agents spanning policy compliance, grounded analytics, runbook adherence, and deterministic enforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T18:04:54Z)
• Do Large Language Models Respect Contracts? Evaluating and Enforcing Contract-Adherence in Code Generation [11.445615378917578]
  PACT is a program assessment and contract-adherence evaluation framework.<n>It provides a comprehensive test-suite corpus focused on contract violations.<n>It enables a systematic analysis of code generation under varied prompting conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T01:12:37Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• 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)
• SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents [10.730852617039451]
  We investigate the capability of LLM-based Code Agents to formalize user issues into test cases.<n>We propose a novel benchmark based on popular GitHub repositories, containing real-world issues, ground-truth bug-fixes, and golden tests.<n>We find that LLMs generally perform surprisingly well at generating relevant test cases, with Code Agents designed for code repair exceeding the performance of systems designed for test generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T14:54:37Z)

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.