mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Phoenix: Safe GitHub Issue Resolution via Multi-Agent LLMs

arXiv 2606.20243 ↗First posted 18 Jun 2026cs.SE cs.MAcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

We present Phoenix, a multi-agent LLM system that resolves GitHub issues from triage through pull-request creation, combining seven layered safety controls with a baseline-aware test evaluation strategy. Phoenix decomposes the work across six specialized agents. Planner, reproducer, coder, tester, failure analyst and Pull Request (PR) agent, all coordinated by a label-based GitHub webhook state machine. Every change is checked against a baseline test run before a pull request is opened. On a 24-instance slice of SWE-bench Lite. run on the production webhook path, Phoenix oracle-resolves 75% of instances with no pass-to-pass regressions on successful runs; this curated slice is not directly comparable to full-split leaderboard results, and we discuss the limits of the comparison. A complementary pilot on 42 real issues across 14 repositories yields 100% correctness preservation (CP; mean 122s on the hard tier). Manual inspection shows that about half of the resulting pull requests are well-targeted fixes. The other half place code at incorrect paths, a planner localization limitation we are addressing with retrieval. We also report the deployment failure modes (WAF filtering, token expiry, permission boundaries, flaky CI) that motivated each safety mechanism.

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 11 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

Builds on

11 of 20 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May

Other references · 10

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  4. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  5. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  6. 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
  7. 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 790
  8. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
  9. 2024AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvementcited by 272
  10. 2018Learning How to Mutate Source Code from Bug-Fixescited by 13

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024MAGIS: LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework for GitHub Issue Resolution
  2. 2026RepoRescue: An Empirical Study of LLM Agents on Whole-Repository Compatibility Rescue
  3. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
  4. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
  5. 2026XAgent: eXecution-guided Agentic AI for Effective Localization and Resolution of GitHub Issues
  6. 2026Correct Code, Broken Contributions? SWE-CC: Benchmarking Repository Policy Compliance for Coding Agents
  7. 2026Not All Agents Are Equal: Code Quality and Post-Merge Maintenance Across Five Autonomous Coding Agents in the Wild
  8. 2026BeyondSWE: Can Current Code Agent Survive Beyond Single-Repo Bug Fixing?