VIBEPASS: Can Vibe Coders Really Pass the Vibe Check?
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
As Large Language Models shift the programming toward human-guided ''vibe coding'', agentic coding tools increasingly rely on models to self-diagnose and repair their own subtle faults -- a capability central to autonomous software engineering yet never systematically evaluated. We present name, the first empirical decomposition that jointly evaluates two coupled tasks: Fault-Triggering Test Generation (FT-Test) constructing a discriminative witness that exposes a latent bug, and Fault-targeted Program Repair (FPR), repairing it under varying diagnostic conditions. name pairs competitive programming problems with LLM-generated solutions that pass partial test suites but fail on semantic edge cases, enabling controlled identification of where the diagnostic chain breaks down. Evaluating 12 frontier LLMs, we find that fault-targeted reasoning does not scale with general coding ability. Models produce syntactically valid test inputs at near-ceiling rates yet collapse on discriminative generation, with fault hypothesis generation -- not output validation -- as the dominant bottleneck. Test-guided repair reveals a complementary insight: when self-generated tests successfully witness a fault, the resulting repair matches or outperforms repair guided by externally provided tests, but tests that fail to witness the fault actively degrade repair below unguided baselines. Together, these results reframe the challenge of autonomous debugging: the binding bottleneck is not code synthesis or test validity but fault-target reasoning, a capability that remains deficient across all frontier models. As Large Language Models shift the programming toward human-guided ''vibe coding'', agentic coding tools increasingly rely on models to self-diagnose and repair their own subtle faults -- a capability central to autonomous software engineering yet never systematically evaluated.
Key facts. Cited by 2 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 29 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.
Builds on
29 of 35 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 28
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,151
- 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
- 2022InCoder: A Generative Model for Code Infilling and Synthesiscited by 492
- 2023RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systemscited by 346
16 more
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder-V2: Breaking the Barrier of Closed-Source Models in Code Intelligencecited by 325
- 2023LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Executioncited by 228
- 2024Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Modelscited by 116
- 2023ChatUniTest: A Framework for LLM-Based Test Generationcited by 94
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilitiescited by 90
- 2024DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Modelscited by 74
- 2024EvoCodeBench: An Evolving Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Code Repositoriescited by 71
- 2023CodeChain: Towards Modular Code Generation Through Chain of Self-revisions with Representative Sub-modulescited by 58
- 2025LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?cited by 52
- 2023xCodeEval: A Large Scale Multilingual Multitask Benchmark for Code Understanding, Generation, Translation and Retrievalcited by 46
- 2024CoverUp: Effective High Coverage Test Generation for Pythoncited by 36
- 2023INTERVENOR: Prompting the Coding Ability of Large Language Models with the Interactive Chain of Repaircited by 18
- 2024LLM-Powered Test Case Generation for Detecting Bugs in Plausible Programscited by 14
- 2024Exploring Interaction Patterns for Debugging: Enhancing Conversational Capabilities of AI-assistantscited by 3
- 2023Back to the Future! Studying Data Cleanness in Defects4J and its Impact on Fault Localizationcited by 2
- 2024SBEST: Spectrum-Based Fault Localization Without Fault-Triggering Testscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Position: Vibe Coding Needs Vibe Reasoning: Improving Vibe Coding with Formal Verification
- 2025Vibe Coding: Toward an AI-Native Paradigm for Semantic and Intent-Driven Programming ↗
- 2025A Survey of Vibe Coding with Large Language Models
- 2025Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI
- 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback
- 2025Lost in Code Generation: Reimagining the Role of Software Models in AI-driven Software Engineering
- 2025SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human Preference
- 2026Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation