mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems

arXiv 2603.29848 ↗First posted 18 Feb 2026cs.AI cs.MAcited by 6

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

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce a comprehensive validation framework for LLM-based agentic systems that provides systematic diagnosis and improvement of reliability failures. The framework includes fifteen failure-detection tools and two root-cause analysis modules that jointly uncover weaknesses across input handling, prompt design, and output generation. It integrates lightweight rule-based checks with LLM-as-a-judge assessments to support structured incident detection, classification, and repair. We applied the framework to IBM CUGA, evaluating its performance on the AppWorld and WebArena benchmarks. The analysis revealed recurrent planner misalignments, schema violations, brittle prompt dependencies, and more. Based on these insights, we refined both prompting and coding strategies, maintaining CUGA's benchmark results while enabling mid-sized models such as Llama 4 and Mistral Medium to achieve notable accuracy gains, substantially narrowing the gap with frontier models. Beyond quantitative validation, we conducted an exploratory study that fed the framework's diagnostic outputs and agent description into an LLM for self-reflection and prioritization. This interactive analysis produced actionable insights on recurring failure patterns and focus areas for improvement, demonstrating how validation itself can evolve into an agentic, dialogue-driven process. These results show a path toward scalable, quality assurance, and adaptive validation in production agentic systems, offering a foundation for more robust, interpretable, and self-improving agentic architectures.

Key facts. Cited by 6 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 14 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2026.

Builds on

14 of 32 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Taming Uncertainty via Automation: Observing, Analyzing, and Optimizing Agentic AI Systems15 Jul
  2. 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization13 May
  3. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?17 Mar
  4. 2024AutoGen Studio: A No-Code Developer Tool for Building and Debugging Multi-Agent Systems9 Aug

Other references · 10

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,384
  3. 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 249
  4. 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Surveycited by 145
  5. 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 142
  6. 2024On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agentscited by 92
  7. 2025Towards Enterprise-Ready Computer Using Generalist Agentcited by 31
  8. 2024SNAP: Semantic Stories for Next Activity Predictioncited by 8
  9. 2022Prescriptive Process Monitoring in Intelligent Process Automation with Chatbot Orchestrationcited by 6
  10. 2025From Benchmarks to Business Impact: Deploying IBM Generalist Agent in Enterprise Productioncited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Who Broke the System? Failure Localization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
  2. 2025AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?
  3. 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures
  4. 2026Early Diagnosis of Wasted Computation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems via Failure-Aware Observability
  5. 2026A Multi-Dataset Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agents in Microservice Failure Diagnosis
  6. 2026When Agents Fail to Act: A Diagnostic Framework for Tool Invocation Reliability in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  7. 2025Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems
  8. 2026VerifyMAS: Hypothesis Verification for Failure Attribution in LLM Multi-Agent Systems