software automation teams

Abstract: People learn not only by repeating successful actions, but also by recounting and explaining their experiences, revising their understanding to guide future behavior. Can a language-model agent improve its future actions by training only on explanations of its own experience? We investigate this question by studying Retrospection-Only Fine-Tuning (ROFT), a minimal online procedure designed to isolate the effect of explanation-only training on subsequent behavior. The agent attempts a task, observes available feedback, generates a retrospective explanation, and is fine-tuned with a next-token prediction loss on the explanation tokens alone. The procedure uses neither an external teacher nor a reward-based policy update. In software-engineering experiments with Qwen3.5-4B, ROFT is trained on problems with mixed successful and unsuccessful base-model attempts. On held-out SWE-bench Verified and Pro, it reaches 49.2% and 26.8% solve rates after 20 updates without using a verifier, compared with GRPO's 48.0% and 25.3% after 40 updates in the evaluated runs, and makes faster early progress in training time and sampled attempts. It also learns to solve individual tasks on which all 64 sampled base-model attempts failed, showing that learning can begin without any initially successful trajectories. Behavioral analyses find that ROFT indirectly assigns credit to actions, encouraging good actions and discouraging incorrect ones. Moreover, prompting retrospections to emphasize more direct solutions yields shorter subsequent attempts even without an explicit length penalty. Together, these findings show that learning to explain can also improve learning to do, establishing self-generated retrospections as useful training targets and motivating further study of explanation-to-action transfer.

Abstract: Agent skills provide reusable knowledge and instructions, yet agents must repeatedly infer how to apply them and which operation should follow. This couples task reasoning with control decisions, allowing prescribed steps to be omitted or applied incorrectly. We introduce HEXIS, which compiles agent skills into extended finite state machines that separate knowledge from control flow. Skill knowledge is incorporated into local instructions that guide reasoning and generation within states. The machine records execution progress and intermediate results, while explicit transition conditions determine subsequent operations. Our incremental compiler first maps skill clauses and tool interfaces to state operations, local instructions, data bindings, and transitions. It then aligns development traces with existing states to identify missing operations and dependencies. These are incorporated by adding or reusing states and refining their connections. Updates are accepted only after static checks and replay of the current and all previously accepted traces. Across four benchmarks and four executors, HEXIS improves success over Skill + ReAct by 16.1 percentage points on average. Qwen3.8-27B reduces execution tokens by 38.4-88.9% across benchmarks.

Abstract: Prompt-policy editing offers a practical way to improve agents that synthesize executable workflows without updating the underlying model. However, persistent prompt editing has two coupled properties. First, edit locality does not imply effect locality: an edit confined to one policy segment can ripple through downstream execution, altering behavior beyond the edited segment. Second, edit effects are composition-sensitive: edits that work in isolation can interfere after composition, causing one or both to lose their benefit or become harmful. Persistent adaptation must therefore support two distinct decisions: identifying where the policy should change from execution feedback, and determining whether the resulting edit remains safe to persist after composition. To address these challenges, we introduce RIPPLE (Replay-Informed Persistent Policy Localization and Editing), which separates where an edit is made from whether it remains safe after composition. It diagnoses failed trajectories, maps each actionable failure to a predefined policy segment, and restricts the correction to that part of the policy. RIPPLE then evaluates candidates against the same iteration-start policy to compare their isolated gains, before replaying promising edits after previously accepted updates to expose downstream effects and interactions. Only edits that remain safe under composition are retained. We evaluate RIPPLE on Flow-HO, a synthetic held-out benchmark for executable workflow synthesis. RIPPLE improves validation success by up to 23.1% and yields positive gains on two additional frozen language-model backbones, while maintaining edit efficiency and low execution cost. Targeted interaction analysis further demonstrates both properties: a segment-local tool-use edit changes downstream resource resolution and validation, while an edit beneficial in isolation becomes harmful after composition.