LLM-based software (LBS) integrates large language models as core components to deliver flexible, personalised responses. Unlike traditional software with deterministic outputs, LBSs exhibit context-dependent, stochastic behaviour that renders classical acceptance testing and test oracles insufficient: the same query may require fundamentally different responses depending on user personas and software context. This gap creates an urgent need for automated acceptance testing frameworks that autonomously interpret user instructions, while reliably inferring user intentions in a changing environment. In this paper, we present an automated acceptance testing framework for LBS with calibrated verdict reliability via two technical contributions. First, we introduce Requirements-Augmented Generation (REAG), which interprets user intentions by retrieving relevant software requirements, domain knowledge, and personas via adaptive RAG and self-reasoning to generate context-aware test oracles. Second, recognising that oracle generation may retrieve irrelevant constraints, misinterpret intent, or hallucinate requirements, we introduce a confidence-calibrated cascade judgment. This method quantifies verdict reliability via simulated expert agreement -- accepting high-confidence verdicts, escalating ambiguous cases, or abstaining when uncertain -- with empirical reliability guarantees backed by conformal risk control. An industrial case study on a production nutrition advisory application demonstrates that REAG achieves a 3.91/5 oracle quality score, reaching qualified or marginal oracle quality in 82% of cases. The confidence-calibrated cascade achieves 98.8% accuracy, improves oracle quality from 3.91 to 4.30 by filtering unqualified outputs, and delivers a 31.7% cost-efficiency improvement over single-judge baselines, validating industrial viability
Fanyu Wang, Chetan Arora, Zhenping Xie et al.· 0 citations
Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.
H. Lin, Mingzhao Liang, Patanamon Thongtanunam et al.· 1 citation
Autonomous coding agents are increasingly embedded in enterprise software workflows with delegated authority over connected systems. Central to this architecture is the agent skills interface: folders of instructions and scripts that agents load dynamically to specialize their behavior. This interface also widens the attack surface, letting malicious shell commands hide within natural-language skill files. We make three contributions. First, an adversarial skill-synthesis method using six LLMs across four families to transform 471 real-world shell commands into benign-appearing skills, released as a benchmark of 2,826 skills mapped to 11 MITRE ATT&CK tactics. Second, a reproducible evaluation pipeline coupling run stratification, evidence anchoring, a refusal veto, and a deterministic declared-intent override with a three-judge LLM-as-a-judge panel, validated against a blind human gold standard (Cohen's kappa = 0.85). Third, a large-scale characterization of two enterprise-grade agents across 5,629 completed runs. Gemini CLI is exploited in 95.5-96.1% of runs and Qwen Code in 71.6-74.0% (raw majority vote to declared-intent-corrected estimate, both within the human gold standard), nearly invariant to the generating model. Explicit safety recognition occurs in only 1.99% of runs. Enterprises must assess and mitigate skill-interface risk before adopting coding agents. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/awsm-research/AgentJailbreak
Rui Yang, Michael Fu, Kla Tantithamthavorn et al.· 0 citations