mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Coverage-Guided Multi-Agent Harness Generation for Java Library Fuzzing

arXiv 2603.08616 ↗First posted 9 Mar 2026cs.SE cs.CRcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Coverage-guided fuzzing has proven effective for software testing, but targeting library code requires specialized fuzz harnesses that translate fuzzer-generated inputs into valid API invocations. Manual harness creation is time-consuming and requires deep understanding of API semantics, initialization sequences, and exception handling contracts. We present a multi-agent architecture that automates fuzz harness generation for Java libraries through specialized LLM-powered agents. Five ReAct agents decompose the workflow into research, synthesis, compilation repair, coverage analysis, and refinement. Rather than preprocessing entire codebases, agents query documentation, source code, and callgraph information on demand through the Model Context Protocol, maintaining focused context while exploring complex dependencies. To enable effective refinement, we introduce method-targeted coverage that tracks coverage only during target method execution to isolate target behavior, and agent-guided termination that examines uncovered source code to distinguish productive refinement opportunities from diminishing returns. We evaluated our approach on seven target methods from six widely-deployed Java libraries totaling 115,000+ Maven dependents. Our generated harnesses achieve a median 26% improvement over OSS-Fuzz baselines and outperform Jazzer AutoFuzz by 5% in package-scope coverage. Generation costs average 3.20 and 10 minutes per harness, making the approach practical for continuous fuzzing workflows. During a 12-hour fuzzing campaign, our generated harnesses discovered 3 bugs in projects that are already integrated into OSS-Fuzz, demonstrating the effectiveness of the generated harnesses.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Mar 2026.

Builds on

5 of 27 references.

References · 5

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  3. 2023Prompt Fuzzing for Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 27
  4. 2023How Effective Are They? Exploring Large Language Model Based Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 21
  5. 2024When Fuzzing Meets LLMs: Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 8

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026FuzzAgent: Multi-Agent System for Evolutionary Library Fuzzing
  2. 2026Fuzzing with Agents? Generators Are All You Need
  3. 2025HarnessAgent: Scaling Automatic Fuzzing Harness Construction with Tool-Augmented LLM Pipelines
  4. 2026Agentic Fuzzing: Opportunities and Challenges
  5. 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing
  6. 2026Complex Agents, Shallow Tests: Demystifying and Enhancing Test Adequacy of Agent Harness in the Wild
  7. 2026Code as Agent Harness
  8. 2026AgentBug-Smith: Automatically Reproducing Real-World Harness Bugs in Agentic Systems