# Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06717 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06717/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 41 of its 76 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 41)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01489/) (2024)
- [AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05427/) (2024)
- [AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10468/) (2025)
- [MAGIS: LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework for GitHub Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17927/) (2024)
- [CodeR: Issue Resolving with Multi-Agent and Task Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01304/) (2024)
- [Proactive Agent: Shifting LLM Agents from Reactive Responses to Active Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12361/) (2024)
- [From LLMs to LLM-based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey of Current, Challenges and Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.02479/) (2024)
- [HyperAgent: Generalist Software Engineering Agents to Solve Coding Tasks at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.16299/) (2024)
- [Inferring Rewards from Language in Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02515/) (2022)
- [AgileCoder: Dynamic Collaborative Agents for Software Development based on Agile Methodology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11912/) (2024)
- [Training Proactive and Personalized LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02208/) (2025)
- [ContextAgent: Context-Aware Proactive LLM Agents with Open-World Sensory Perceptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14668/) (2025)
- [Need Help? Designing Proactive AI Assistants for Programming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04596/) (2024)
- [Agentic Software Engineering: Foundational Pillars and a Research Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06216/) (2025)
- [Structured Uncertainty guided Clarification for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.08798/) (2025)
- [When to Show a Suggestion? Integrating Human Feedback in AI-Assisted Programming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04930/) (2023)
- [Balancing Autonomy and Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Taxonomy for Autonomous LLM-powered Multi-Agent Architectures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03659/) (2023)
- [Intent Detection in the Age of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01627/) (2024)
- [ClarQ-LLM: A Benchmark for Models Clarifying and Requesting Information in Task-Oriented Dialog](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.06097/) (2024)
- [SWE-Synth: Synthesizing Verifiable Bug-Fix Data to Enable Large Language Models in Resolving Real-World Bugs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14757/) (2025)
- [Building Effective AI Coding Agents for the Terminal: Scaffolding, Harness, Context Engineering, and Lessons Learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05344/) (2026)
- [ProAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents for Proactive Assistance with Real-World Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.04482/) (2026)
- [Proactive Agent Research Environment: Simulating Active Users to Evaluate Proactive Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00842/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Asking for What Was Never Requested: Horizontal and Vertical Proactivity in Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37236/) (2026)
- [Foundations of Proactive Agents: Principles, Technical Layers, and Proactivity-Gym](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37267/) (2026)
- [ParanoiaEval: Benchmarking Unnecessary Defensive Work in Agentic Coding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08662/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents are rapidly changing the landscape of software development, moving from inline completion to autonomous systems that edit repositories, open pull requests, respond to issues, and run scheduled or webhook triggered routines across the development life cycle. The next generation is increasingly described as proactive and long-horizon: agents should notice relevant changes before the developer asks, connect signals across tools, decide when to interrupt, and carry preferences across sessions. Yet the field still lacks a clear account of what proactivity means for software development, how it differs from autonomy, what acceptance criteria proactive long-horizon tasks should satisfy, and which metrics determine whether unsolicited agent behavior is useful rather than merely active. Proactive coding agents should be evaluated by the quality and improvement of their insight policy: the policy that decides what matters next, what evidence supports it, whether to show it, and how to adapt after feedback. This view is grounded in the principles of mixed initiative interaction. We propose a three level taxonomy of proactivity (Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware), compare contemporary coding agents against five practical criteria, and sketch an active user simulation protocol with three evaluation targets: Insight Decision Quality (IDQ), Context Grounding Score (CGS), and Learning Lift