# A Phased Workflow for Operating LLM-Based Coding Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30701 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30701/

## 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 5 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 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, 5 of 5)

- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04618/) (2025)
- [Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02977/) (2024)
- [Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09089/) (2025)
- [Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding Agents?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11988/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-based coding agents combine a foundation model with a harness that shapes agent behavior. For non-trivial tasks, how practitioners structure their work with the coding agents determines whether reliable results follow. We report on a phased workflow for operating coding agents developed by the AI research team at Infobip. The workflow structures agent-assisted development into four phases where human effort is front-loaded and delegation increases as artifacts mature. Context management is the central concern, addressed through four strategies applied at each phase to counter known failure modes. From practitioner experience, we observe that upstream errors in research and planning can compound across later phases, while correcting generated code can introduce bloat and fragility. This motivates front-loading human review. We identify two open problems: the absence of metrics for workflow effectiveness and the gap between formalized context management components and the workflow-level patterns that practitioners need.