mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Detecting Prompt Knowledge Gaps for Improved LLM-guided Issue Resolution

arXiv 2501.11709 ↗First posted 20 Jan 2025cs.SEcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have become essential in software development, especially for issue resolution. However, despite their widespread use, significant challenges persist in the quality of LLM responses to issue resolution queries. LLM interactions often yield incorrect, incomplete, or ambiguous information, largely due to knowledge gaps in prompt design, which can lead to unproductive exchanges and reduced developer productivity. In this paper, we analyze 433 developer-ChatGPT conversations within GitHub issue threads to examine the impact of prompt knowledge gaps and conversation styles on issue resolution. We identify four main knowledge gaps in developer prompts: Missing Context, Missing Specifications, Multiple Context, and Unclear Instructions. Assuming that conversations within closed issues contributed to successful resolutions while those in open issues did not, we find that ineffective conversations contain knowledge gaps in 44.6% of prompts, compared to only 12.6% in effective ones. Additionally, we observe seven distinct conversational styles, with Directive Prompting, Chain of Thought, and Responsive Feedback being the most prevalent. We find that knowledge gaps are present in all styles of conversations, with Missing Context being the most repeated challenge developers face in issue-resolution conversations. Based on our analysis, we identify key textual and code-related heuristics (Specificity, Contextual Richness, and Clarity) that are associated with successful issue closure and help assess prompt quality. These heuristics lay the foundation for an automated tool that can dynamically flag unclear prompts and suggest structured improvements. To test feasibility, we developed a lightweight browser extension prototype for detecting prompt gaps, that can be easily adapted to other tools within developer workflows.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 7; 2026: 4.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review
  2. 2026Know Before Fix: QA-Driven Repository Knowledge Acquisition for Software Issue Resolution
  3. 2025SimpleDevQA: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Development Knowledge QA
  4. 2024Don't Hallucinate, Abstain: Identifying LLM Knowledge Gaps via Multi-LLM Collaboration
  5. 2026SkillForge: Self-Distilling Agents for Project-Specific Issue Resolution
  6. 2025Studying and Automating Issue Resolution for Software Quality ↗
  7. 2025A Taxonomy of Prompt Defects in LLM Systems
  8. 2025Lingxi: Repository-Level Issue Resolution Framework Enhanced by Procedural Knowledge Guided Scaling