A large empirical study on using LLMs to generate CI configurations from natural language across services and model families suggests that similarity and validity are distinct objectives for CI generation and motivate schema-aware evaluation and tooling for LLM-based configuration generation.
Abstract
Adopting Continuous Integration (CI) often requires writing YAML configurations that are error-prone and challenging to maintain. Despite increasing LLM use in software engineering, their ability to generate CI configurations from natural language across services and model families remains unclear. This paper presents a large empirical study on using LLMs to generate CI configurations. We introduce DOC2CI, a benchmark of 3,363 description-to-YAML pairs collected from the official documentation of four CI services, and evaluate 14 open-weight models from 7B-34B parameters together with GPT-4o and GPT-4.1, producing over 53,000 configurations. We assess both reference alignment and schema validity to determine whether the generated configurations are structurally valid. We further develop a failure taxonomy from a manual analysis of 385 configurations and examine why LLMs disagree. Across models and services, exact reference reproduction never exceeds 3.1%, and while 97% of outputs parse as YAML, only 71% satisfy service schemas. Larger models improve structural validity, but code specialization provides no consistent advantage over comparable general models. Model differences are driven largely by output completeness: for the same request, some models generate the expected fragment while others produce a full workflow. Finally, a training-free schema-guided repair method improves schema validity to 94%, while fine-tuning improves similarity to documentation but reduces standalone validity. This suggests that similarity and validity are distinct objectives for CI generation and motivate schema-aware evaluation and tooling for LLM-based configuration generation.
A reproducible, human-validated evaluation framework applied to 13 strategies—four architectural families crossed with four reasoning variants crossed with four reasoning variants—across three SLMs spanning 3B–14B parameters, plus targeted ablations.
Balaji Venktesh, Amsaprabhaa M, G. Sundaram· International Conference on...· 0 citations
An automated, multi-dimensional evaluation framework for C# code generation, applying it to four state-of-the-art LLMs: GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok is presented and a substantial gap between correctness and quality attributes is revealed.
Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Ghalandarian, Majid Bazargani, Masoumeh Taromirad· 0 citations
A systematic empirical study of multiple strategies for context enrichment and optimization in LLM‐based unit test generation, conducted on seven diverse projects (three open‐source and four proprietary industrial systems), encompassing 261 distinct methods establish this optimized context strategy as a cost‐effective...
Javier Ferrer, Francisco Chicano· Expert systems· 0 citations
This work introduces RepoProbe, a novel benchmark for evaluating repository-level code understanding through open-ended Q&A using GitHub Discussions, which focuses on open-ended architectural inquiries rather than defect reporting and proposes a Checklist-Based Verification Protocol that decomposes answers into atomic,...
Analysis of technique papers from ICSE 2026 finds that a newer model with a single prompt natively outperforms the heavily engineered tooling proposed just a year prior, and identifies that constructive techniques like code generation or repair are more amenable to substitution by a single-prompt.
Nahian Salsabil, Joy Saha, S. Dristi et al.· 0 citations
This study investigates whether an LLM can bridge requirements engineering and architectural design, generating architectures solely from textual requirements and evaluating structural agreement and perceived quality of results, and shows potential for requirements-driven synthesis when guided by exemplar prompting.
D. Albuquerque, José Renan, Guillermo Rodríguez et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.