# What Makes a Good Bug Report for an AI Agent?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07593 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07593/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 14 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 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, 14 of 14)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16941/) (2025)
- [AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05427/) (2024)
- [Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02977/) (2024)
- [SWE-Bench+: Enhanced Coding Benchmark for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06992/) (2024)
- [The SWE-Bench Illusion: When State-of-the-Art LLMs Remember Instead of Reason](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12286/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Google](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07531/) (2025)
- [HumanEvalComm: Benchmarking the Communication Competence of Code Generation for LLMs and LLM Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00215/) (2024)
- [Assessing the Quality of the Steps to Reproduce in Bug Reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.07107/) (2019)
- [Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18755/) (2025)
- [Past, Present, and Future of Bug Tracking in the Generative AI Era](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.08005/) (2025)
- [Why are Some Bugs Non-Reproducible? An Empirical Investigation using Data Fusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.05316/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Can your AI agent be cheaper? Investigating the effects of task specifications on token spend in agentic coding tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.25399/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Automated program repair (APR) agents are transitioning from research benchmarks to developer workflows, yet they still begin with bug reports written for human developers. While decades of research have established what makes a good bug report for humans (e.g., steps to reproduce, stack traces), it remains unclear whether these features transfer to LLM-based agents. We study this question in two analyses. First, we use statistical modeling to examine associations between 27 bug-report features and repair success across 433 SWE-bench Verified issues attempted by 87 repair agents. We find that fix suggestions, reproduction scripts, repository source code, and localization info are associated with higher resolution likelihood, while longer reports are associated with lower odds. Second, we conduct controlled ablations across 2 models and 17 problem-statement mutations on SWE-bench Pro, varying the information available to an agent while holding the underlying task fixed. We remove or isolate selected bug-report content, delete fault-localization cues, and test structural changes that flatten lists or remove section headers. We find that both models depend on localization cues and expected behavior, and that structural changes alone can reduce solve rates, even without removing any content. The two models diverge in how they handle missing information: Qwen searches more widely and can exhaust its turn budget, while Gemma commits to a plausible interpretation early and patches on it. Our findings indicate that a good bug report for an agent overlaps with, but is not identical to, a good report for a human: agents benefit most from concrete, executable, and well-localized information, whereas some qualities long emphasized for human readers, such as natural language steps to reproduce and readable descriptions, contribute little or even correlate with lower success.