mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

LadderTeam: Dual-Agent Laddering Elicitation Framework

arXiv 2608.17029 ↗First posted 17 Aug 2026cs.SE cs.HCcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Eliciting detailed and actionable software requirements from end-users is a critical phase in the iterative development of a software product or application. To ensure the feedback collected is detailed and actionable, software teams can leverage the laddering interview technique. While effective for ensuring granular and actionable items from the software feedback, these interviews are subject to several limitations. They are traditionally a manual process associated with a time and financial burden, limiting scalability; interviewers must balance probing for depth while managing interviewee behavioral and cultural constraints. To address these limitations, we present LadderTeam, an open, reproducible framework that automates UX wireframe interviews using a dual-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture. An active interviewer agent executes one of three probing strategies (ACV, 5-Whys, and JTBD) to elicit actionable software requirements from usability feedback comments, while a concurrent background Judge agent evaluates probe-response pairs and triggers real-time guardrails to prevent topic drift. To rigorously evaluate LLM laddering without participant variance confounds, we introduce a controlled simulation methodology utilizing scripted ground-truth transcripts to isolate probe quality as the sole experimental variable. Across 216 interviews, LadderTeam achieved 99.1% chain convergence and an 81.0% ground-truth actionable response match (86.1% reluctant personality, 75.9% terse personality) with zero drift across all runs. All evaluation code, all transcripts, inputs, and a live demonstration platform will be open-sourced upon acceptance.

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 1 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2026.

Builds on

1 of 21 references.

References · 1

  1. 2024On the Automated Processing of User Feedbackcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Elicitron: An LLM Agent-Based Simulation Framework for Design Requirements Elicitation
  2. 2026Rethinking the Value of Agent-Generated Tests for LLM-Based Software Engineering Agents
  3. 2025How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design
  4. 2026Taming Scylla: Understanding the multi-headed agentic daemon of the coding seas
  5. 2026PROTEA: Offline Evaluation and Iterative Refinement for Multi-Agent LLM Workflows
  6. 2026Coding-Agent Benchmarks Should Match Their Users' Task Flows
  7. 2026Interaction-as-a-Judge
  8. 2026ReqElicitGym: An Evaluation Environment for Interview Competence in Conversational Requirements Elicitation