# QASecClaw: A Multi-Agent LLM Approach for False Positive Reduction in Static Application Security Testing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01885 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01885/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08155/) (2020)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Devign: Effective Vulnerability Identification by Learning Comprehensive Program Semantics via Graph Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03496/) (2019)
- [Deep Learning based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.07235/) (2020)
- [Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.14179/) (2022)
- [Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.02125/) (2021)
- [Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16169/) (2023)
- [LLM4Vuln: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Decoupling and Enhancing LLMs' Vulnerability Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.16185/) (2024)
- [An Empirical Study of Deep Learning Models for Vulnerability Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08109/) (2022)
- [Evaluation of ChatGPT Model for Vulnerability Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07232/) (2023)
- [The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis: A Journey with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00245/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Static Application Security Testing tools help developers find security vulnerabilities before release, but they often produce many false positives. This increases manual review effort, reduces developer trust, and may cause real vulnerabilities to be ignored among noisy reports. We present QASecClaw, a multi agent approach that combines conventional Static Application Security Testing with coding specialized Large Language Model based contextual code review. A SAST engine first reports candidate vulnerabilities, and a Large Language Model based SAST Filter Agent then reviews each finding with source code context to decide whether it is likely to be a true positive or a false positive. QASecClaw is coordinated by a Mission Orchestrator and includes specialized agents for test planning, security validation, evidence correlation, filtering, and reporting. We evaluate QASecClaw on OWASP Benchmark v1.2, which contains 2,740 Java test cases across 11 Common Weakness Enumeration categories with ground truth labels. QASecClaw achieves an F1 score of 90.93 percent, compared with 78.39 percent for standalone Semgrep. The improvement is mainly driven by an 88.6 percent reduction in false positives, from 560 to 64, with only a 3.1 percent reduction in recall. These results show that Large Language Model augmented multi agent verification can make Static Application Security Testing output more accurate, useful, and trustworthy.