Rebuild Dossier: Mechanically-Enforced Specs for Agentic App Rebuilds, and What Model-Tier Failures Reveal
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
An AI agent's rebuild is only as good as the process that produced it. Prior work found that once a model is strong enough, a multi-agent rebuild pipeline loses to the simplest approach: giving the model the original code and one instruction (AgentModernize). We present rebuild-dossier, an open-source tool that locks an application's real interface - its exact inputs and outputs - before any code is written, then enforces one-test-at-a-time building through automated checks, not written instructions alone. Three results shape this evaluation, with differing amounts of evidence. First, in a small comparison, the compliant agent failed a held-back test while the rule-breaking agent passed everything - proof that a passing suite doesn't certify correctness when tests can be gamed. Second, we tested whether this beats simply giving the weaker model the source and one instruction: tied on a small app, but lost outright on a larger one where the automated check wasn't even running - pointing to the check mechanism, not interface-locking, which held up separately. Third, every claim here is checked at three levels - the agent's own report, an automated log, and the actual files produced - catching real errors, including a bug in our own logging code, that a single level would have missed. These risks reproduce on a different model and toolchain: a stronger model followed our process three times running, something the weaker model never managed. The tool is public, MIT licensed, and reproduces end to end against our own applications.
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. First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Agentic Program Repair from Test Failures at Scale: A Neuro-symbolic approach with static analysis and test execution feedback
- 2026From Approval to Execution: Reconstruction-Aware Repair Analysis for LLM-Agent Software
- 2026SWE Refactor Bench: Can Coding Agents Complete a Long-Horizon, Whole-Repository Stack Migration?
- 2026AgenticRepair: Multi-Faceted Program Context Engineering for Agentic Vulnerability Repair
- 2026Agent Lifecycle Toolkit (ALTK): Reusable Middleware Components for Robust AI Agents
- 2026EviACT: An Evidence-to-Action Framework for Agentic Program Repair
- 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study
- 2026Project Prometheus: Bridging the Intent Gap in Agentic Program Repair via Reverse-Engineered Executable Specifications