mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Project Prometheus: Bridging the Intent Gap in Agentic Program Repair via Reverse-Engineered Executable Specifications

arXiv 2604.17464 ↗First posted 19 Apr 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The transition from neural machine translation to agentic workflows has revolutionized Automated Program Repair (APR). However, existing agents, despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, frequently suffer from the ``Intent Gap'' -- the misalignment between the generated patch and the developer's original intent. Current solutions relying on natural language summaries or adversarial sampling often fail to provide the deterministic constraints required for surgical repairs. In this paper, we introduce textscPrometheus, a novel framework that bridges this gap by prioritizing textitSpecification Inference over code generation. We employ Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) as an executable contract, utilizing a multi-agent architecture to reverse-engineer Gherkin specifications from runtime failure reports. To resolve the ``Hallucination of Intent,'' we propose a Requirement Quality Assurance (RQA) Loop, a mechanism that leverages ground-truth code as a proxy oracle to validate inferred specifications. We evaluated textscPrometheus on 680 defects from the Defects4J benchmark. The results are transformative: our framework achieved a total correct patch rate of 93.97% (639/680). More significantly, it demonstrated a Rescue Rate of 74.4%, successfully repairing 119 complex bugs that a strong blind agent failed to resolve. Qualitative analysis reveals that explicit intent guides agents away from structurally invasive over-engineering toward precise, minimal corrections. Our findings suggest that the future of APR lies not in larger models, but in the capability to align code with verified, Executable Specifications -- whether pre-existing or reverse-engineered.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2026.

Builds on

7 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Abstain and Validate: A Dual-LLM Policy for Reducing Noise in Agentic Program Repair3 Oct
  2. 2024SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs5 Aug
  3. 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair25 Mar

Other references · 4

  1. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
  2. 2022Less Training, More Repairing Please: Revisiting Automated Program Repair via Zero-shot Learningcited by 76
  3. 2024Hybrid Automated Program Repair by Combining Large Language Models and Program Analysiscited by 22
  4. 2025Large Language Models are Qualified Benchmark Builders: Rebuilding Pre-Training Datasets for Advancing Code Intelligence Taskscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026AgenticRepair: Multi-Faceted Program Context Engineering for Agentic Vulnerability Repair
  2. 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study
  3. 2026Intent Formalization: A Grand Challenge for Reliable Coding in the Age of AI Agents
  4. 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback
  5. 2026Multi-Perspective Agentic Program Repair via Code Property Graphs and Temporal Execution Graphs
  6. 2024An Empirical Evaluation of Pre-trained Large Language Models for Repairing Declarative Formal Specifications
  7. 2026EviACT: An Evidence-to-Action Framework for Agentic Program Repair
  8. 2026A Jagged Frontier: Evaluating Robustness of Code Agents to Semantics-Preserving Transformations