analiza aiqbench
This research demonstrates that for advanced AI agents, simple code generation with minimal instructions can outperform complex multi-agent pipelines if the latter lacks rigorous enforcement mechanisms. The authors introduce Rebuild Dossier, an open-source tool that enforces strict interface contracts and automated checks to prevent agents from gaming tests or introducing hidden errors during application modernization. This work highlights a critical shift in AI engineering where process integrity and verification become more important than raw model capability alone.
Rebuild Dossier: Mechanically-Enforced Specs for Agentic App Rebuilds, and What Model-Tier Failures Reveal
arXiv:2608.23616v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
48 pages, 1 figure. Code and evaluation artifacts: this https URL (archived at DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22036801)
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
D.2.5; D.2.4; I.2.2
arXiv:2608.23616 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2608.23616v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.23616 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 360 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

A shared agentic platform for Wood Mackenzie, on Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 17 sept. 2026
[AINews] OpenAI DevDay 2026: Dots, 6.1 Sol, Ultrafast, Decisions API, Agents API, Spaces, Marketplace, and 1.2 Billion ChatGPT WAU
Latent Space · 30 sept. 2026

Presentation: APIs for Agents: Rethinking API Programs in the MCP Era
InfoQ · 23 sept. 2026

Projection sampling preserves capabilities but diminishes gains from alignment fine-tuning
LessWrong · 16 oct. 2026