LLM-Driven CI-CD Workflow Intelligence for Cyber Systems Engineering
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
CI/CD workflows have become executable operational policy: they decide what gets built, tested, released, and deployed, and they mediate how maintainers interact with delivery infrastructure. That makes them an important measurement point for cyber-systems engineering. Recent large language model (LLM) work shows that workflow stages can be recognized directly from configuration files, but stage labels alone do not tell us whether a workflow is brittle, unusual for its ecosystem, or worth revising first. We present an LLM-based CI/CD analysis pipeline that combines repository enrichment, anti-pattern detection, stage mining, and recommendation generation over a large GitHub corpus. Starting from 59,550 repositories with at least 1,000 stars, we identify 34,225 projects with CI/CD and collect 127,559 configuration files. Across 75,201 analyzed workflows, the anti-pattern detector reports 434,769 findings, dominated by reliability and maintainability issues. Across 59,906 configurations, stage usage differs significantly by language (chi2 = 4168.88, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.063), and domain analysis shows distinct operational profiles, including higher release and cache usage in mobile projects. For repository-level recommendation generation, few-shot prompting performs best overall, averaging 8.25 recommendations per repository with 96.1% YAML-valid snippets. Taken together, the results argue for CI/CD observability that combines diagnosis, context, and human review rather than treating workflow mining as a stage-classification problem alone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
11 of 33 references.
References · 11
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Models for Software Engineeringcited by 58
- 2017Continuous Integration, Delivery and Deployment: A Systematic Review on Approaches, Tools, Challenges and Practicescited by 22
- 2023Towards Autonomous Testing Agents via Conversational Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2024On the effectiveness of Large Language Models for GitHub Workflowscited by 5
- 2024The Hidden Costs of Automation: An Empirical Study on GitHub Actions Workflow Maintenancecited by 3
- 2015Continuous integration in a social-coding world: Empirical evidence from GitHub. **Updated version with corrections**cited by 2
- 2022GitHub Actions: The Impact on the Pull Request Processcited by 2
- 2022Automatic Security Assessment of GitHub Actions Workflowscited by 2
- 2016Initial and Eventual Software Quality Relating to Continuous Integration in GitHubcited by 1
- 2023Continuous Integration and Software Quality: A Causal Explanatory Studycited by 1
- 2024On the Need to Monitor Continuous Integration Practices -- An Empirical Studycited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.