跳到正文
返回论文列表
cs.SE提交于 已译

编码代理的跨提供商评审作为运行时契约:一项受控试点与故障注入研究

Cross-Provider Review as a Runtime Contract for Coding Agents: A Controlled Pilot and Fault-Injection Study

Bowen Xu · Boyu Chen

中文摘要

编码代理(coding agents)在同一工作站协作,但各自接入不同的提供商与订阅配额。第二代理可以审查已完成答案,但调用又要消耗一份配额,且可能没实质发现。提出一种顾问式跨提供商评审契约:独立资源池、有界执行、审阅者能力受限、输入完整送达、可用语义输出、显式失败状态以及每次尝试的持久化证据。一项由代理自身撰写、受控的20轮配对开发试点中,8轮出现实质性审阅发现(95%精确区间19.1–63.9%)。在两侧审阅后端上做边界条件扫描,重现了一个先前发现的局部输入假阳性:四个截断级别在修复前历史通过,修复后失败。扫描还发现并修复了进程回收时的取消问题。在真实命令行(CLI)探针中,Claude无写入工具;Codex在5次只读试验中均尝试写入,每次写入工具均失败,无一可丢弃仓库被改动。这些测试只覆盖指定路径与版本,不涉及现场可靠性。一项预先注册的元数据-only评审分配的影子研究累计记录了25次正式观察,随后一次精确运行时回归发现第三个缺陷:审阅者以非零退出码给出格式良好的判定,却被计为完成。退出状态未被逐次记录,因此无法事后还原暴露情况。25条正式记录与2条待定记录作为审计队列保留;测量有效队列已从零重启,采集已开始。未报告任何关卡结果。

关键要点

  1. 01针对多编码代理共享工作站、独立提供商配额的场景,提出顾问式跨提供商评审契约,定义独立资源池、有界执行与显式失败状态等要素
  2. 0220轮受控配对开发试点中,8轮产生实质性审阅发现(精确区间19.1–63.9%),但统计精度受样本量限制
  3. 03边界条件扫描复现并修复了局部输入截断导致的假阳性以及进程回收时的取消问题,发现审阅者退出码未被记录导致完成的判定被错计
  4. 04CLI探针显示Claude无写入工具,Codex在5次只读试验中均尝试写入且均失败,但结果仅覆盖指定路径与版本
  5. 05未报告关卡结果,测量有效队列已从头重启,审计队列保留25条正式与2条待定记录

解读

尚无解读。

原始英文摘要

arXiv:2610.10961v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents increasingly share a workstation while drawing on separate providers and subscription allowances. A second agent can inspect a completed answer, but the call spends another pool and may provide no substantive finding. We describe an advisory cross-provider review contract: distinct resource pools, bounded execution, restricted reviewer capabilities, complete input delivery, usable semantic output, explicit failure states and durable per-attempt evidence. In a controlled, agent-authored pilot of 20 paired development turns, eight had a material reviewer finding (95% exact interval 19.1-63.9%). A boundary-condition scan across both reviewer backends reproduced a previously discovered false success on partial input: four truncation levels passed historically and failed after repair. The scan also found and repaired cancellation during process reaping. In real CLI probes, Claude had no writing tools; Codex attempted writes in five of five read-only trials, each write tool failed, and no disposable repository changed. These tests cover specified paths and versions, not field reliability. A preregistered shadow study of metadata-only review allocation accrued 25 formal observations before an exact-runtime regression found a third defect: a reviewer exiting nonzero with a well-formed verdict was counted as complete. Exit status was not recorded per attempt, so exposure cannot be resolved retrospectively. The 25 formal and two pending records remain an audit cohort; the measurement-valid cohort restarted at zero and collection has begun. No gate result is reported.

同方向论文 · cs.SE

查看全部 →

反向发现 · 这篇论文相关的工具与提示词

去交叉发现 →

关联提示词 · 6

编程github.com/f/awesome-chatgpt-prompts·外部收录·

Code Review Second Opinion

- When the user is requested as reviewer, read the PR diff and description. - Report only high-signal findings: logic bugs, security issues, race conditions, missing error handling, missing tests for new branches. - Rank findings by severit…

编程tech.qimao.com·外部收录·

按规范检查 Go 代码改动,分析问题与服务影响并生成 Code Review 报告

``` # Code Review 规范 你是 golang 编程的专家,现在对代码进行 Code Review,请按照以下步骤进行: (若遇到 git 命令分页的情况,请加上`| cat`) ## 步骤一:代码规范检查 - [ ] 是否遵循最佳实践 @.cursor/rules/rule-code-spec.mdc - [ ] 是否存在重复代码 - [ ] 是否有充分的注释和文档 - [ ] 是否易于理解和维护 ## 步骤二:功能问题分析 - [ ] 分析本次代码改动的影响…

编程zhuanlan.zhihu.com·外部收录·

用于指导 Claude Code 按阶段规划、测试驱动实现、重构并提交代码。

### 1. 规划与分阶段 将复杂的工作分解为 3-5 个阶段。在 `IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md` 中记录: ```text ## 阶段 N: [Name] **目标**: [具体可交付成果] **成功标准**: [可测试的结果] **测试**: [具体的测试用例] **状态**: [未开始|进行中|已完成] ``` * 随着进展更新状态 * 所有阶段完成后删除文件 ### 2. 实现流程 1. **理解** - 研究代码库中的现有模式 2. **测试**…