mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Agentic Repository Mining: A Multi-Task Evaluation

arXiv 2605.04845 ↗First posted 6 May 2026cs.SEcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Mining software repositories often requires classifying artifacts like commits, reviews, code lines, or entire repositories into categories. Human labeling is expensive and error-prone; limited context frequently leads to misclassifications or uncertainty in labels. We investigate whether LLM agents that dynamically explore repositories through standard bash commands can match the classification quality of simple LLMs that receive pre-engineered context. Across four tasks, eight approach configurations, and 4943 classifications, agents achieve competitive accuracy despite retrieving their own context. The primary advantage is robustness: agents avoid context-window overflows and scale independently of artifact size. A manual diagnosis of 100 cases where approaches disagree with the ground truth reveals specification ambiguities and labels produced under limited context, suggesting that accuracy against such ground truth may underestimate approaches with broader context access.

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 14 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.

Builds on

14 of 43 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Are Coding Agents Generating Over-Mocked Tests? An Empirical Study30 Jan
  2. 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents27 Jan
  3. 2026Promises, Perils, and (Timely) Heuristics for Mining Coding Agent Activity26 Jan
  4. 2025RepoAudit: An Autonomous LLM-Agent for Repository-Level Code Auditing30 Jan

Other references · 10

  1. 2017Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methodscited by 47
  2. 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completioncited by 16
  3. 2018Improving Vulnerability Inspection Efficiency Using Active Learningcited by 10
  4. 2017Boosting Automatic Commit Classification Into Maintenance Activities By Utilizing Source Code Changescited by 8
  5. 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reviewcited by 7
  6. 2015Impact assessment for vulnerabilities in open-source software librariescited by 4
  7. 2023Security Defect Detection via Code Review: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communitiescited by 4
  8. 2025LLM-Based Detection of Tangled Code Changes for Higher-Quality Method-Level Bug Datasetscited by 3
  9. 2025Identifying Helpful Context for LLM-based Vulnerability Repair: A Preliminary Studycited by 2
  10. 2025SHERPA: A Model-Driven Framework for Large Language Model Executioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ATLAS: Agentic Taxonomy of Large-Scale Software Ecosystems
  2. 2026Agent Retrieval Bench: Evaluating Repository Context Retrieval for Coding Agents
  3. 2026FastContext: Training Efficient Repository Explorer for Coding Agents
  4. 2026CommitDistill: A Lightweight Knowledge-Centric Memory Layer for Software Repositories
  5. 2026Learning to Commit: Generating Organic Pull Requests via Online Repository Memory
  6. 2026TraceCompiler: Skill-Guided Mining and Compilation of LLM Agent Traces into Mostly Deterministic Workflows
  7. 2026CodeNib: A Multi-View Data System for Serving Repository Context to Coding Agents
  8. 2026Large-scale Repository Engineering via Agent-Native Reusable Code Primitives