automated testing engineers

Abstract: A coding agent combines a large language model (LLM) with a harness that plans, edits, and executes code. We study Cortex, a supervisory layer for pre-execution governance, requirement tracking, and iterative validation and repair. We formalize requirement closure on a finite lattice. For a fixed requirement set and a sound, monotone validation rule with persistent evidence, exhaustive iteration reaches the least fixed point with no more strict increases than there are requirements. Fair consequence scheduling reaches the same closure. A separate stochastic model bounds expected completion time under a uniform positive-progress assumption. These results depend on their stated assumptions; artifact repair, fallible validation, and finite execution budgets do not satisfy them automatically. We define Gauntlet's trajectory-similarity and build-gated scores, attack-success estimators, Wilson intervals, and case-cluster bootstrap summaries. Effective-feedback accounting counts newly certified requirements, rather than estimating their information value or utility. The five evaluation families support raw-versus-governed comparisons. We report retained benchmark observations, including rescoring of existing artifacts; constructed outcomes are excluded. Unequal observation sets and incomplete provenance prevent causal claims about governance or measured long-horizon scaling.

Abstract: Self-improving LLM systems propose changes to themselves and keep those that score better on a small evaluation set. We treat this keep-if-better step as selection under measurement noise, model the correlated errors of the candidates in a single decision, and study empirically what happens when the evaluation set is reused. In runs where Qwen models rewrite their own instructions and every candidate is also scored on 600 held-out items, most proposals after the first are harmful, and the model gives the size of the winner's curse of a generation's best candidate. With a prior from a separate pilot, it matches the average overstatement of first-generation commits in native loops, though not setting by setting. In a pre-registered study, the final selection-set score of greedy loops exceeded held-out accuracy by 13 to 20 points with 16 selection items and by 1 to 5 points with 256. Held-out gains grew with the selection set on TREC but not on GSM8K, and the tested acceptance rules did not beat greedy acceptance over whole runs. Gains measured on the selection set also exceeded held-out gains when a current model refined a competent instruction, and in the validation scores of GEPA and MIPROv2. Scoring the starting and the current instruction on 64 items never used for selection removes the average bias of a loop's reported gain, but single estimates remain off by about 6 points. Self-improvement studies should report held-out gains with their uncertainty.

Abstract: Agentic Harness is the runtime that constructs task context and controls execution flow, thereby shaping overall agent performance. Given a fixed model and external evaluation, automated Harness optimization seeks to improve this runtime through an iterative proposal--evaluation loop to better solve target tasks. Existing meta-harness methods mainly adopt proposer-centric discovery, in which an LLM-based proposer integrates accumulated experimental findings to determine subsequent Harness revisions. This places the burden of maintaining the evolving improvement state on the proposer as history expands and its underlying experimental logic becomes harder to discern. In this paper, we introduce the Causal Improvement Graph (CIG), a graph-governed meta-harness framework that externalizes the evolving improvement state in a persistent graph, allowing prior findings to directly govern subsequent Harness optimization through local proposer operations. CIG grows and links Evidence, Hypothesis, Intervention, and Outcome nodes to represent what was observed, how it may be explained, how to test that explanation, and what the evaluation reveals. Their structural relations preserve how the improvement state changes across iterations, allowing local proposers to build directly on relations among prior findings rather than recover them from raw history. Across various agent tasks, CIG discovers stronger Harnesses than previous meta-harness baselines and remains robust to the choice of task solver and proposer. Structural ablations further support the design of an explicit improvement state with graph-governed evolution.

Abstract: Test-driven development gives AI coding agents executable requirements for implementing software. Because these agents can adapt their implementations to the examples they observe, passing a predetermined collection of tests can leave substantial parts of the intended behavior unimplemented. We propose Generative Test-Driven Development (GTDD), a formulation of test-driven development in which a separate testing agent generates new inputs after each candidate implementation is fixed, using a human-specified behavioral contract and the feedback from earlier rounds. A trusted evaluator checks these inputs, returns reduced counterexamples to the coding agent, and saves them for regression testing, so development continually confronts failures beyond the initial examples. We characterize the evidence that this process provides through a finite-population analysis of false acceptance under adaptive candidate selection. The resulting bounds quantify how test visibility and repeated feedback affect acceptance, and show that fresh random audits after candidate commitment control false acceptance across development rounds. In a paired experiment on a stateful key-value store, both policies that regenerated tests during development ended with lower mean failure rates than the policy whose tests were generated once by the same language model, and giving the tester the candidate's source produced no detectable additional improvement. Further conditions requesting equal numbers of tests did not isolate any single feature of the policies as the source of this difference. GTDD combines this adaptive development feedback with established regression tests and an independent acceptance rule.

Abstract: We present: (i) a new dataset consisting of the full development history of a 21,000-line Python tool built entirely by Claude AI, with no human-authored code or tests, (ii) two code-provenance tracing tools, (iii) three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability, (iv) application of these to analyse the dataset. We find that: (i) user coding agent CLI instructions differ in kind from IDE-chat instructions, with a greater focus on comprehension, planning and consultation, (ii) code development is mainly proactive, (iii) 14.3% of AI code-generation events contain a real error later caught by the AI-authored test suite, (iv) roughly 1 in 4-5 of the AI's interactive responses contains one or more factual errors.