A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Quality Assurance Practices and Gaps in AI Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used across software engineering, web automation, research, and productivity applications. Their integration of planning, memory, tool use, code execution, and external interactions enables greater autonomy but also introduces new reliability, safety, and security risks. We present a large-scale empirical study of quality assurance (QA) practices in 157 open-source LLM-based agent projects with at least 100 GitHub stars. We analyze documentation, source code, configurations, and tests to characterize QA practices across execution surfaces, safeguards, testing artifacts, risk scenarios, and recurring gaps. We find that current QA primarily focuses on basic functionality and high-risk actions, while coverage remains fragmented. Safeguards are inconsistently applied across equivalent execution routes, tests rarely examine boundary, adversarial, or multi-step tool-use failures, and identified risks are seldom translated into end-to-end QA checks. These findings highlight the need to move beyond feature-level testing toward systematic end-to-end validation that ensures agent workflows remain within intended boundaries when interacting with untrusted inputs, tools, persistent state, and external APIs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 28 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2026.
Builds on
28 of 34 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025An Empirical Study of Testing Practices in Open Source AI Agent Frameworks and Agentic Applications23 Sep
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development16 Jul
Other references · 25
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,761
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,348
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
13 more
- 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
- 2023Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Modelscited by 551
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 476
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agentscited by 341
- 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 328
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Designcited by 256
- 2022MRKL Systems: A modular, neuro-symbolic architecture that combines large language models, external knowledge sources and discrete reasoningcited by 153
- 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP) at First Glance: Studying the Security and Maintainability of MCP Serverscited by 62
- 2025MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocolscited by 47
- 2025Les Dissonances: Cross-Tool Harvesting and Polluting in Pool-of-Tools Empowered LLM Agentscited by 19
- 2021What are Weak Links in the npm Supply Chain?cited by 16
- 2023An empirical study of testing machine learning in the wildcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Tangent: An Empirical Study of Testing Practices for LLM-Based Agent Applications
- 2026MANTRA: Synthesizing SMT-Validated Compliance Benchmarks for Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026Towards Verifiably Safe Tool Use for LLM Agents
- 2026Where Agent Frameworks Fall Short: Examining Functional Challenges and Usability Concerns
- 2024Defining and Detecting the Defects of the Large Language Model-based Autonomous Agents
- 2025Benchmarking and Studying the LLM-based Agent System in End-to-End Software Development
- 2026When Agents Fail to Act: A Diagnostic Framework for Tool Invocation Reliability in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
- 2026Who Tests the Testers? Systematic Enumeration and Coverage Audit of LLM Agent Tool Call Safety