Hedwig: Dynamic Autonomy for Coding Agents Under Local Oversight
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite coding agents' advances in handling increasingly complex tasks, their continued tendency to introduce unintended edits, subtle bugs, and scope drift that slip past code review means developers must still decide how much autonomy to grant them. However, existing approaches for setting an agent's level of autonomy, such as static permission settings or instruction files, cannot account for how developers' preferences for agent autonomy can shift across tasks and over time. We conducted a formative survey with 21 software engineers who use coding agents and found that they experience frustration with calibrating autonomy and have evolving preferences for level of oversight. Building on these insights, we present Hedwig, a CLI coding agent that dynamically adjusts its autonomy level based on developer-agent interactions across sessions. Rather than operating on a global, fixed autonomy configuration, Hedwig learns an evolving set of behavioral guidelines from developer decisions and feedback, reducing friction on work for which the agent has earned trust, while tightening oversight when the agent operates outside familiar territory. Hedwig demonstrates the potential of a new paradigm where agents intelligently adapt their level of autonomy based on user trust through active, longitudinal collaboration.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
8 of 13 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 7
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 399
- 2025Magentic-UI: Towards Human-in-the-loop Agentic Systemscited by 41
- 2024Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agentscited by 38
- 2025Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025cited by 20
- 2025Morae: Proactively Pausing UI Agents for User Choicescited by 18
- 2026Learning Personalized Agents from Human Feedbackcited by 17
- 2026Modeling Distinct Human Interaction in Web Agentscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026SWE-Touch: Benchmarking Coding Agents When Users Touch the Codecited by 2
- 2026Do Personalized Skills Help Coding Agents? An Empirical Study of Developer Interaction Historiescited by 0
- 2026What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents30 Sep 2026
- 2026Do Personalized Skills Help Coding Agents? An Empirical Study of Developer Interaction Histories10 Aug 2026
- 2026SWE-Touch: Benchmarking Coding Agents When Users Touch the Code3 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents
- 2026Human oversight of agentic systems in practice: Examining the oversight work, challenges, and heuristics of developers using software agents
- 2026Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy
- 2026How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions
- 2025Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows
- 2026Humans are Missing from AI Coding Agent Research
- 2026Teaching Agents to Code Reliably
- 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time