# TAG: A Lightweight Framework for Test-Driven Agentic Artifact Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02615 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02615/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04406/) (2023)
- [Rethinking Verification for LLM Code Generation: From Generation to Testing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06920/) (2025)

## 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.