Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Beyond pip install: Evaluating LLM Agents for the Automated Installation of Python Projects

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 2412.06294 v1 pith:V6VULW5P submitted 2024-12-09 cs.SE

Beyond pip install: Evaluating LLM Agents for the Automated Installation of Python Projects

classification cs.SE
keywords repositoryagentinstallationtasksagentslevelengineeringfurther
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Many works have recently proposed the use of Large Language Model (LLM) based agents for performing `repository level' tasks, loosely defined as a set of tasks whose scopes are greater than a single file. This has led to speculation that the orchestration of these repository-level tasks could lead to software engineering agents capable of performing almost independently of human intervention. However, of the suite of tasks that would need to be performed by this autonomous software engineering agent, we argue that one important task is missing, which is to fulfil project level dependency by installing other repositories. To investigate the feasibility of this repository level installation task, we introduce a benchmark of of repository installation tasks curated from 40 open source Python projects, which includes a ground truth installation process for each target repository. Further, we propose Installamatic, an agent which aims to perform and verify the installation of a given repository by searching for relevant instructions from documentation in the repository. Empirical experiments reveal that that 55% of the studied repositories can be automatically installed by our agent at least one out of ten times. Through further analysis, we identify the common causes for our agent's inability to install a repository, discuss the challenges faced in the design and implementation of such an agent and consider the implications that such an agent could have for developers.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Dynamics of Agentic Multi-Hunk Repair

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0

    On 372 multi-hunk bugs, coding agents repair between 26% and 93% of defects, accuracy falls as edits become more divergent and dispersed, and failed repairs consume up to 343% more tokens.