ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09133v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:53:37 GMT
• Title: ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 68.42713285082912
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue. Agent-generated tests can encode incomplete or incorrect behavioral targets; when the same trajectory writes both the patch and the test, their errors can agree and create false confidence. We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it. 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. Both roles use Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B as the backbone and are trained separately. In Learn to Test, the Test agent learns to produce behaviorally valid tests that distinguish correct from incorrect patches. In Test to Improve, the Repair agent learns both direct task resolution and feedback-guided revision. On SWE-bench Verified, test quality determines whether feedback helps: holding the base Repair agent fixed, tests from the base Test agent reduce resolved rate from a no-test baseline of 61.2% to 57.3%, whereas tests from GPT-5.6-sol raise it to 65.3%. Role-specific post-training raises the Qwen Test agent's Base-to-Gold success from 22.2% to 62.2%; composing the two post-trained Qwen agents reaches 72.6%, an 11.4-point gain over the original no-test baseline without stronger-model or Oracle feedback at evaluation time. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/MSR-Orchard/execcritic.

Related papers

• SWE-Gate: Passing Functional Tests Is Not Enough for Software Engineering Agents [63.65682461568621]
  We introduce SWE-Gate, a repository-level benchmark for software engineering agents that explicitly evaluates review constraint compliance alongside functional correctness.<n>SWE-Gate derives review constraints from real pull request review comments and synthesizes repository-level repair instances around these constraints.<n>Each instance provides separate functional and constraint tests, together with non-compliant and gold patches, enabling explicit separation between issue resolution capability and review constraint compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T17:53:34Z)
• Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation [4.061618191574875]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T22:36:12Z)
• Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug? [1.6787220460106658]
  BSG-VA captures each validation command at its exact working-tree state, extracts a test-only patch, and replays the command on the original buggy code.<n>The captured outcome and the replay results assign every event an evidence role, from gold-aligned bug-discriminating through regression-only to misleading.<n>A three-arm experiment tests whether returning the B-replay outcome to the agent changes this pattern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T22:32:14Z)
• Beyond Fail-to-Pass: Iterative Hardening of Co-Generated Bug Reproduction Tests and Fixes [55.114939648705395]
  Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair increasingly practical for real-world bugs.<n>Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) help close this gap by turning a bug report into an executable, bug-specific signal.<n>We propose CoHarden, a co-generation framework that uses the Lax signal as an in-loop convergence criterion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T07:30:07Z)
• AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents [83.37969790806069]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T06:21:13Z)
• Test Coverage Analysis of Agentic Pull Requests [13.366199469803922]
  coding agents submit complete pull requests (PRs) with minimal human intervention.<n>As these agents become more prevalent, ensuring the code they generate is adequately tested is critical to preventing regressions.<n>We analyze 4882 agent-generated PRs from the AIDev dataset (532 Java and 4350 Python PRs) produced by five coding agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T15:26:30Z)
• TTHE: Test-Time Harness Evolution [50.26245555541721]
  Existing approaches optimize such harnesses before deployment, searching training or development data for a fixed agent workflow that is then frozen at test time.<n>We ask whether the harness can instead be optimized during evaluation itself, using only the unlabeled execution traces the agent produces on the test inputs.<n>During evaluation, TTHE maintains a population of candidate harnesses and refines them through an agentic proposer that reasons over their execution traces.<n>A judge then commits an improved harness from execution-derived proxy signals, and the selected program persists to govern subsequent inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T05:53:39Z)
• 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)

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.