mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LLM-Driven CI-CD Workflow Intelligence for Cyber Systems Engineering

arXiv 2607.04579 ↗First posted 6 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2023A Survey on Large Language Models for Software Engineeringcited by 58
  2. 2017Continuous Integration, Delivery and Deployment: A Systematic Review on Approaches, Tools, Challenges and Practicescited by 22
  3. 2023Towards Autonomous Testing Agents via Conversational Large Language Modelscited by 13
  4. 2024On the effectiveness of Large Language Models for GitHub Workflowscited by 5
  5. 2024The Hidden Costs of Automation: An Empirical Study on GitHub Actions Workflow Maintenancecited by 3
  6. 2015Continuous integration in a social-coding world: Empirical evidence from GitHub. **Updated version with corrections**cited by 2
  7. 2022GitHub Actions: The Impact on the Pull Request Processcited by 2
  8. 2022Automatic Security Assessment of GitHub Actions Workflowscited by 2
  9. 2016Initial and Eventual Software Quality Relating to Continuous Integration in GitHubcited by 1
  10. 2023Continuous Integration and Software Quality: A Causal Explanatory Studycited by 1
  11. 2024On the Need to Monitor Continuous Integration Practices -- An Empirical Studycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.