REVIEW 7 cited by
AutoDev: Automated AI-Driven Development
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The landscape of software development has witnessed a paradigm shift with the advent of AI-powered assistants, exemplified by GitHub Copilot. However, existing solutions are not leveraging all the potential capabilities available in an IDE such as building, testing, executing code, git operations, etc. Therefore, they are constrained by their limited capabilities, primarily focusing on suggesting code snippets and file manipulation within a chat-based interface. To fill this gap, we present AutoDev, a fully automated AI-driven software development framework, designed for autonomous planning and execution of intricate software engineering tasks. AutoDev enables users to define complex software engineering objectives, which are assigned to AutoDev's autonomous AI Agents to achieve. These AI agents can perform diverse operations on a codebase, including file editing, retrieval, build processes, execution, testing, and git operations. They also have access to files, compiler output, build and testing logs, static analysis tools, and more. This enables the AI Agents to execute tasks in a fully automated manner with a comprehensive understanding of the contextual information required. Furthermore, AutoDev establishes a secure development environment by confining all operations within Docker containers. This framework incorporates guardrails to ensure user privacy and file security, allowing users to define specific permitted or restricted commands and operations within AutoDev. In our evaluation, we tested AutoDev on the HumanEval dataset, obtaining promising results with 91.5% and 87.8% of Pass@1 for code generation and test generation respectively, demonstrating its effectiveness in automating software engineering tasks while maintaining a secure and user-controlled development environment.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
Who Broke the System? Failure Localization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
AgentLocate localizes multi-agent LLM failures to a responsible agent and earliest decisive step via judge hypotheses, confidence-weighted multi-evaluator verification, and LoRA refinement.
-
TableTalk: Scaffolding Spreadsheet Development with a Language Agent
A scaffolding spreadsheet agent produced partial spreadsheets that evaluators preferred 2.3 times more often than a standard AI assistant's in a 20-user controlled study.
-
Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Google
A SWE-Agent-style AI repaired 73% of machine-reported and 25.6% of human-reported bugs in a curated 178-bug Google-internal benchmark, with 43% and 17.9% matching the human fix.
-
Self-Evolving Coding Agents
A systematic survey that defines self-evolving coding agents, organizes systems into a five-category object-centered taxonomy, and analyzes when and on what evidence these agents evolve.
-
A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications
A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.
-
OpenReview Should be Protected and Leveraged as a Community Asset for Research in the Era of Large Language Models
The paper advocates protecting and leveraging OpenReview's peer review corpus as a community asset for LLM-based review assistance, benchmarks, and alignment.
-
Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI
A qualitative taxonomy positions vibe coding and agentic coding as complementary paradigms rather than rivals in AI-assisted software development.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.