mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ABTest: Behavior-Driven Testing for AI Coding Agents

arXiv 2604.03362 ↗First posted 3 Apr 2026cs.SEcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

AI coding agents are increasingly integrated into real-world software development workflows, yet their robustness under diverse and adversarial scenarios remains poorly understood. We present ABTest, a behavior-driven fuzzing framework that systematically tests coding agents by turning real-world failure reports into repository-grounded behavioral tests. ABTest (1) mines user-reported anomalies to derive reusable workflow patterns (Interaction Patterns) and behaviors (Action types); (2) composes them into stepwise fuzzing templates; (3) instantiates executable test cases in real repositories; (4) executes them with coding agents while recording traces and artifacts; and (5) detects and validates anomalous behaviors. We apply ABTest to three widely used coding agents: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI, and Gemini CLI. From 400 user-reported developer-confirmed agent failures, we extract 47 Interaction Patterns and 128 Action types, generating 647 repository-grounded fuzzing cases. Executing the 647-case bundle once per evaluated configuration, ABTest flags 1,573 behavioral anomalies across the three coding agent families, of which 642 are manually confirmed as new true anomalies, achieving a detection precision of 40.8%. Our results demonstrate that ABTest effectively uncovers real-world failures, exposes robustness differences across models, and reveals previously unreported failure modes.

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 11 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2026.

Builds on

11 of 27 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026ProjDevBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents on End-to-End Project Development2 Feb
  2. 2025Decoding the Configuration of AI Coding Agents: Insights from Claude Code Projects12 Nov
  3. 2024Agents in Software Engineering: Survey, Landscape, and Vision13 Sep
  4. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul

Other references · 7

  1. 2023RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systemscited by 346
  2. 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
  3. 2017Learn&Fuzz: Machine Learning for Input Fuzzingcited by 23
  4. 2024Fuzzing BusyBox: Leveraging LLM and Crash Reuse for Embedded Bug Unearthingcited by 15
  5. 2025ELFuzz: Efficient Input Generation via LLM-driven Synthesis Over Fuzzer Spacecited by 15
  6. 2025Low-Cost and Comprehensive Non-textual Input Fuzzing with LLM-Synthesized Input Generatorscited by 10
  7. 2026Engineering Pitfalls in AI Coding Tools: An Empirical Study of Bugs in Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLIcited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ClayBuddy: A Framework, Evaluation, & Mitigation of Coding Agent Failures
  2. 2026TDAD: Test-Driven Agentic Development - Reducing Code Regressions in AI Coding Agents via Graph-Based Impact Analysis
  3. 2026AgentAssay: Token-Efficient Regression Testing for Non-Deterministic AI Agent Workflows
  4. 2026Agentic Fuzzing: Opportunities and Challenges
  5. 2026Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation
  6. 2026XAI for Coding Agent Failures: Transforming Raw Execution Traces into Actionable Insights
  7. 2025An Empirical Study of Testing Practices in Open Source AI Agent Frameworks and Agentic Applications
  8. 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories