A Governance Methodology Layer for AI-Assisted Software Development: Defect Taxonomy, Controlled Ablation, and a Test of Process-Over-Capability
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous coding agents produce output that passes syntactic checks -- compilation, type safety, CI -- at high velocity. Yet syntactic correctness does not imply semantic correctness: design boundaries, security invariants, and maintainability contracts remain structurally invisible to automated pipelines. This paper makes four contributions. First, we present a defect-class taxonomy grounded in five AI agent permission and governance modules, separating defects structurally detectable by static analysis from those requiring semantic review. Second, we describe a runtime-decoupled governance gate -- a file-based protocol that reads generator output and emits a structured verdict without API coupling, hence portable across generators. Third, we formalize methodology-as-code: expressing a verification protocol as a version-controlled, executable artifact whose two layers separate portable methodology from host automation. Fourth, we report a controlled ablation experiment (E-ablation, N=5 artifacts, 8-item independent ground truth) comparing harness-structured review against a token-matched unstructured prompt. The structured condition records 62% lenient recall against 50%, with 25% strict against 0%. A severity-grade differential reported earlier does not survive blind re-grading and is withdrawn (Sec. 6.6). An independent-session re-test with blind scoring does not replicate that contrast: the conditions differ by one strict hit in 24 (6/24 against 5/24), the structured aggregate again 25% and the unstructured 0% not recurring (Sec. 6.7). Both conditions miss document-quality defects identified by a human QA reviewer, indicating complementarity between structured AI review and human process inspection. The re-test does not distinguish structured review from a detailed unstructured prompt here, so process design as the dominant factor remains a hypothesis, not a result of this paper.
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 1 Jul 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026AI-Generated Smells: An Analysis of Code and Architecture in LLM and Agent-Driven Development
- 2026ESAA-Security: An Event-Sourced, Verifiable Architecture for Agent-Assisted Security Audits of AI-Generated Code
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering
- 2026Cheap Code, Costly Judgment: A Case Study on Governable Agentic Software Engineering
- 2026Needle in the Repo: A Benchmark for Maintainability in AI-Generated Repository Edits
- 2026TDD Governance for Multi-Agent Code Generation via Prompt Engineering
- 2026Specifying AI-SDLC Processes: A Protocol Language for Human-Agent Boundaries
- 2026Making Agent-Mediated Contributions Governable: A Project-Level Governance Manifest for Open-Source AI Collaboration