# ATM: CID-Brokered Pre-Write Admission for Multi-Agent Code Co-Synthesis arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00041 ยท HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00041/ ## 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 31 of its 48 references that are in the map. - First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 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 31) - [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (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) - [RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03091/) (2023) - [AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18666/) (2025) - [CrossCodeEval: A Diverse and Multilingual Benchmark for Cross-File Code Completion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11248/) (2023) - [NL2Repo-Bench: Towards Long-Horizon Repository Generation Evaluation of Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.12730/) (2025) - [Commit0: Library Generation from Scratch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01769/) (2024) - [FeatureBench: Benchmarking Agentic Coding for Complex Feature Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.10975/) (2026) - [Atomix: Timely, Transactional Tool Use for Reliable Agentic Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14849/) (2026) - [CodeS: Natural Language to Code Repository via Multi-Layer Sketch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16443/) (2024) - [ClawGuard: A Runtime Security Framework for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11790/) (2026) - [GitTaskBench: A Benchmark for Code Agents Solving Real-World Tasks Through Code Repository Leveraging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18993/) (2025) - [Cordon: Semantic Transactions for Tool-Using LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.17573/) (2026) - [Solver-Aided Verification of Policy Compliance in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20449/) (2026) - [Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21489/) (2026) - [CodeCRDT: Observation-Driven Coordination for Multi-Agent LLM Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18893/) (2025) - [SyncMind: Measuring Agent Out-of-Sync Recovery in Collaborative Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06994/) (2025) - [S-Bus: Automatic Read-Set Reconstruction for Multi-Agent LLM State Coordination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.17076/) (2026) - [Multi-agent Collaboration with State Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20563/) (2026) - [AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03551/) (2026) - [Towards Engineering Multi-Agent LLMs: A Protocol-Driven Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.12120/) (2025) - [CodeTeam: An LLM-Powered Multi-Agent Framework for Repository-Level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.22082/) (2026) - [ATCC: Adaptive Concurrency Control for Unforeseen Agentic Transactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.13906/) (2026) - [Semantic Consensus: Process-Aware Conflict Detection and Resolution for Enterprise Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16339/) (2026) - [LLM-Driven Collaborative Model for Untangling Commits via Explicit and Implicit Dependency Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.16395/) (2025) - [The Specification Gap: Coordination Failure Under Partial Knowledge in Code Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.24284/) (2026) - [MPAC: A Multi-Principal Agent Coordination Protocol for Interoperable Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.09744/) (2026) - [Verifying Semantic Conflict-Freedom in Three-Way Program Merges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.06551/) (2018) - [Semistructured Merge with Language-Specific Syntactic Separators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18888/) (2024) ## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3) - [Claim Plane: Enforceable Change Intents and Dynamic Scope for Parallel Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21909/) (2026) - [EA-Graph: Artifact-Anchored Verification Memory for Coding Agents under Upstream Drift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04278/) (2026) - [Claim Plane: Reliability Gains and the Limits of Selective Concurrency for Parallel Coding Agents: A 30-Pair, Three-Seed Confirmatory Study of Deterministic Pre-Write Admission](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00947/) (2026) ## Abstract (arXiv) Multi-agent LLM systems can decompose software-engineering work into planning, generation, validation, and repair, but a narrower systems problem remains: before any governed shared mutation is applied, a system must decide which concurrently formed write intents may proceed in parallel, which require deterministic composition or serialization, and which must take a fail-closed path. We address this problem with the AI-Atomic-Framework (ATM), a specification-grounded governance substrate for software agents operating within a single governance domain. ATM binds task intent, repository scope, write admission, validation, and evidence obligations into one governance chain. A Content Identifier (CID) broker serves as the shared-mutation admission subsystem. Adapter-guided atomization maps write intents to semantic atoms and bounded regions; when persistent atom-map coverage is incomplete, virtual atoms provide temporary auditable governance units for conservative comparison and routing. Governed shared writes are ultimately applied by a neutral steward rather than directly by proposing agents. Evaluation combines controlled, field, adoption, and extension evidence, including a 12-scenario deterministic design matrix, three archived runner cases, ATM-AdmissionBench, three archived same-file boundary cases, a three-week external-adopter study, and an operational recovery-routing benchmark. The results support feasibility, auditability, and bounded recoverability within the observed single-domain settings, but do not claim broad comparative superiority or cross-clone governance.