# Hedwig: Dynamic Autonomy for Coding Agents Under Local Oversight

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11495 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11495/

## 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 8 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 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, 8 of 8)

- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [Magentic-UI: Towards Human-in-the-loop Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.22358/) (2025)
- [Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10999/) (2024)
- [Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.14012/) (2025)
- [Morae: Proactively Pausing UI Agents for User Choices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.21456/) (2025)
- [Learning Personalized Agents from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16173/) (2026)
- [When Should Users Check? Modeling Confirmation Frequency in Multi-Step Agentic AI Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05307/) (2025)
- [Modeling Distinct Human Interaction in Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17588/) (2026)

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

- [SWE-Touch: Benchmarking Coding Agents When Users Touch the Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02499/) (2026)
- [Do Personalized Skills Help Coding Agents? An Empirical Study of Developer Interaction Histories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10319/) (2026)
- [What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39989/) (2026)

## 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.