Practical Limits of Autonomous Test Repair: A Multi-Agent Case Study with LLM-Driven Discovery and Self-Correction
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Maintaining reliable UI test suites in large-scale enterprise applications is a persistent and costly challenge. We present an industrial case study of a multi-agent autonomous testing system evaluated using anonymized execution data from a production-like enterprise UI testing prototype. The application features several hundred dynamic UI elements per screen. Built on a large language model with LangGraph orchestration, Playwright execution, and a RAG knowledge base, the system evolves from human-directed testing toward High-autonomy feature discovery and test execution: given no explicit test targets, it discovers over 100 testable features across 10 UI screens, dynamically expands coverage by an additional 15--30 features through runtime DOM analysis, and iteratively repairs failing tests without human intervention. We analyzed 300 consecutive autonomous execution reports encompassing 636 individual test-case executions across 10 distinct scenario families. The system achieved a 70% repair convergence rate at the scenario-family level, with a mean of 3.4 repair iterations to convergence. However, only 10% of scenario families succeeded on first attempt, 38% of reports failed to produce any executable test artifact, and we documented concrete instances of assertion weakening and test-case deletion used as workaround mechanisms to achieve superficial convergence. Our findings show that unrestricted autonomy leads to unstable and often misleading outcomes, while constrained autonomy transforms such systems into operationally viable workflows. Rather than advocating full autonomy, our findings suggest that reliable autonomous testing in enterprise-scale settings requires explicit constraints, validation boundaries, and human oversight to preserve semantic correctness and operational trustworthiness.
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 3 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 May 2026.
Builds on
3 of 13 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Rise of Agentic Testing: Multi-Agent Systems for Robust Software Quality Assurance
- 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study
- 2026Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation
- 2026An Exploration of Agentic Information Fusion for Test Maintenance Prediction
- 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback
- 2026Automated structural testing of LLM-based agents: methods, framework, and case studies
- 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair
- 2026Kozuchi Agent: A Language-Agnostic Open-Weight Agent for Software Repair