arXiv (All)
open access
Securing Agent-Generated Code with Its Own Development History
Pull requests written by coding agents can pass a project's test suite while omitting a guard or a validation step. To find the missing condition, a reviewer currently relies on static analysis of the final code. An agent-generated change, however, is accompanied by a development history that a huma
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Securing Agent-Generated Code with Its Own Development History#1450705
- On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories#138993
- RepoMirage: Probing Repository Context Reasoning in Code Agents with Perturbations#229581
- SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents#287076
- An Evaluation of Data Leakage Risks in Tool-Using LLM Agents in Realistic Scenarios#282741
Record · ID 1456921
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive