TAG: A Lightweight Framework for Test-Driven Agentic Artifact Generation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Generating structured artifacts with Large Language Models - e.g. database queries, threat framework mappings, entity schemas - is relatively straightforward; however, making them reliable enough for production deployments presents challenges. We present TAG, a lightweight framework based on a core principle: textitLLMs generate, we validate. This reframing shifts responsibility from generation quality to validation rigor. The framework rests on three key attributes: First, test driven generation: when tests fail, the LLM receives indicative error messages that expose why the output failed, enabling the LLM to understand its mistakes and refine subsequent attempts. Second, deterministic and LLM-based tests: deterministic tests catch heuristics that can be programmatically verified (schema, syntax, cross-reference), while LLM-based tests evaluate nuanced semantic and delicate features that resist programmatic inspection (intent alignment, logical consistency, domain correctness). Third, expert-distilled judges: LLM-based tests are calibrated to distill and replicate human expert decision distribution, transforming manual human quality gates into scalable, reusable evaluation proxies that reflect professional-grade validation standards. We demonstrate the framework on three artifact types in the security domain - KQL query generation, MITRE ATT&CK mapping, and entity mapping - deployed in production at Microsoft Sentinel. We believe this framework can be applied beyond security to other artifact generation tasks, providing a path to reliable, high-quality outputs without sacrificing the efficiency gains of LLM generation.
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 5 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.
Builds on
5 of 9 references.
References · 5
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2023Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Modelscited by 551
- 2025Rethinking Verification for LLM Code Generation: From Generation to Testingcited by 12
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Tangent: An Empirical Study of Testing Practices for LLM-Based Agent Applications
- 2026Automated structural testing of LLM-based agents: methods, framework, and case studies
- 2026Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration for Unit Test Generation via Human-Testing-Inspired Workflows
- 2025Challenges in Testing Large Language Model Based Software: A Faceted Taxonomy
- 2026Grounding AI Agents in Contracts: An Empirical Evaluation of Spec-Driven Test Generation
- 2026LLMs taking shortcuts in test generation: A study with SAP HANA and LevelDB
- 2025Hallucination to Consensus: Multi-Agent LLMs for End-to-End JUnit Test Generation
- 2026On the risk of coding before testing: An empirical study on LLM-based test generation workflow