Pith. sign in

REVIEW 10 cited by

Human-In-the-Loop Software Development Agents

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

arxiv 2411.12924 v2 pith:4TP7XO6O submitted 2024-11-19 cs.SE cs.AIcs.HCcs.LG

Human-In-the-Loop Software Development Agents

classification cs.SE cs.AIcs.HCcs.LG
keywords softwaredevelopmentcodehulaagentsframeworkatlassiancoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs)-based multi-agent paradigms for software engineering are introduced to automatically resolve software development tasks (e.g., from a given issue to source code). However, existing work is evaluated based on historical benchmark datasets, rarely considers human feedback at each stage of the automated software development process, and has not been deployed in practice. In this paper, we introduce a Human-in-the-loop LLM-based Agents framework (HULA) for software development that allows software engineers to refine and guide LLMs when generating coding plans and source code for a given task. We design, implement, and deploy the HULA framework into Atlassian JIRA for internal uses. Through a multi-stage evaluation of the HULA framework, Atlassian software engineers perceive that HULA can minimize the overall development time and effort, especially in initiating a coding plan and writing code for straightforward tasks. On the other hand, challenges around code quality remain a concern in some cases. We draw lessons learned and discuss opportunities for future work, which will pave the way for the advancement of LLM-based agents in software development.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-08 accept novelty 7.0

    The paper delivers a taxonomy of seven LLM study types in software engineering along with eight guidelines that separate mandatory requirements from recommended practices to address reproducibility challenges.

  2. Where Is the Cost of Third-Party API Routers in Agentic Software Development?

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Router-side response tampering yields 0% defense success on Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and OpenCode; whitelist and LLM review only partially restore control.

  3. ACE-Bench: A Lightweight Benchmark for Evaluating Azure SDK Usage Correctness

    cs.DC 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ACE-Bench is an execution-free benchmark that scores LLM coding agents on correct Azure SDK usage via deterministic regex checks and reference-based LLM judges derived from official documentation.

  4. Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-08 accept novelty 6.0

    A group of 22 researchers proposes seven study types and eight guidelines for empirical software engineering studies involving LLMs to enhance reproducibility and replicability.

  5. Governed AI-Assisted Engineering: Graduated Human Oversight for Agentic Code Generation in Regulated Domains

    cs.HC 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.5

    A four-dimension classifier routes agentic coding tasks into HITL, human-over-the-loop, or automated-with-monitoring tiers, analytically estimated to keep ~91% of ungoverned coding velocity under regulatory constraints.

  6. Governed AI-Assisted Engineering: Graduated Human Oversight for Agentic Code Generation in Regulated Domains

    cs.HC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    GAIE introduces an Oversight Classification Model to route code generation tasks to human-in-the-loop, human-over-the-loop, or automated-with-monitoring tiers based on regulatory impact, customer proximity, reversibil...

  7. Toward Self-Evolution-Ready Workflow Harnesses: A Reversible Migration Path and Convertibility Taxonomy for Expert LLM Pipelines

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Introduces a migration framework and A/B/C taxonomy to convert static expert LLM workflows into self-evolution-ready harnesses.

  8. Rethinking Agentic Reinforcement Learning In Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    The paper reviews conceptual foundations, methodological innovations, effective designs, critical challenges, and future directions for LLM-based Agentic Reinforcement Learning.

  9. Rethinking Agentic Reinforcement Learning In Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The paper surveys the conceptual foundations, methodological innovations, challenges, and future directions of agentic reinforcement learning frameworks that embed cognitive capabilities like meta-reasoning and self-r...

  10. Rethinking Agentic Reinforcement Learning In Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    This review synthesizes conceptual foundations, methods, challenges, and future directions for agentic reinforcement learning in large language models.