mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Wink: Recovering from Misbehaviors in Coding Agents

arXiv 2602.17037 ↗First posted 19 Feb 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.HCcited by 11

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous coding agents, powered by large language models (LLMs), are increasingly being adopted in the software industry to automate complex engineering tasks. However, these agents are prone to a wide range of misbehaviors, such as deviating from the user's instructions, getting stuck in repetitive loops, or failing to use tools correctly. These failures disrupt the development workflow and often require resource-intensive manual intervention. In this paper, we present a system for automatically recovering from agentic misbehaviors at scale. We first introduce a taxonomy of misbehaviors grounded in an analysis of production traffic, identifying three primary categories: Specification Drift, Reasoning Problems, and Tool Call Failures, which we find occur in about 30% of all agent trajectories. To address these issues, we developed a lightweight, asynchronous self-intervention system named Wink. Wink observes agent trajectories and provides targeted course-correction guidance to nudge the agent back to a productive path. We evaluated our system on over 10,000 real world agent trajectories and found that it successfully resolves 90% of the misbehaviors that require a single intervention. Furthermore, a live A/B test in our production environment demonstrated that our system leads to a statistically significant reduction in Tool Call Failures, Tokens per Session and Engineer Interventions per Session. We present our experience designing and deploying this system, offering insights into the challenges of building resilient agentic systems at scale.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 21 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.

Builds on

21 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 12

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories2 Feb
  2. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub21 Jan
  3. 2025VIGIL: A Reflective Runtime for Self-Healing Agents8 Dec
  4. 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories31 Oct
  5. 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures29 Sep
  6. 2025When Agents go Astray: Course-Correcting SWE Agents with PRMs2 Sep
  7. 2025Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectories23 Jun
  8. 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization13 May
  9. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?17 Mar
  10. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul
  11. 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair25 Mar
  12. 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development16 Jul

Other references · 9

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,384
  4. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
  5. 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 272
  6. 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agentscited by 196
  7. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
  8. 2025Process Reward Models for LLM Agents: Practical Framework and Directionscited by 81
  9. 2025AgentPRM: Process Reward Models for LLM Agents via Step-Wise Promise and Progresscited by 69

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 11.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure
  2. 2026Code as Agent Harness
  3. 2026ClayBuddy: A Framework, Evaluation, & Mitigation of Coding Agent Failures
  4. 2026Self-Improving AI Coding Agents Through Accumulated Behavioral Rules: A Closed-Loop Framework
  5. 2026Inside the Scaffold: A Source-Code Taxonomy of Coding Agent Architectures
  6. 2026TACT: Mitigating Overthinking and Overacting in Coding Agents via Activation Steering
  7. 2026TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimization
  8. 2025AI Agentic Programming: A Survey of Techniques, Challenges, and Opportunities