{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "Your coding assistant makes changes that still need substantial repair before merging.", "change": "Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.", "baseline": "The same coding agent, repository snapshot, tools, and token budget.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Correct patches, regression failures, human repair time, and total cost per accepted change.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2609.20446", "title": "Spotlights: Discovering Improvement Opportunities in Software Repositories", "summary": "It replaces the manual, expert-driven step of deciding which code regions in a repository are worth optimizing for a high-level objective, before any automated code improvement is applied. Cost is inference spend on successive agent reviews over a mapped repository plus engineering time to validate candidates, of which roughly 30% of top-ten findings fail the stated correctness or severity thresholds. It can fail through inconsistent discovery (about 26% of candidate occurrences not reproduced across repeated runs), missed targets (two of nine expert selections unrecovered), and reliance on runtime telemetry or domain context that may not be available.", "rationale": "The task is immediately relevant to production codebases and feasible via third-party APIs on constrained infrastructure, but candidate quality and run-to-run consistency are imperfect, so adoption should follow workload-specific validation rather than direct production reliance.", "technique": "Agent-driven repository optimization-opportunity discovery", "family": "agentes_de_codigo", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-09-17", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20446", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 1, "stars": 6, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "It replaces the manual, expert-driven step of deciding which code regions in a repository are worth optimizing for a high-level objective, before any automated code improvement is applied. Cost is inference spend on successive agent reviews over a mapped repository plus engineering time to validate candidates, of which roughly 30% of top-ten findings fail the stated correctness or severity thresholds. It can fail through inconsistent discovery (about 26% of candidate occurrences not reproduced across repeated runs), missed targets (two of nine expert selections unrecovered), and reliance on runtime telemetry or domain context that may not be available.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20446", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "A discovered change reduces end-to-end page-processing runtime by 10.6% while preserving measured output quality; across three cases the system recovers seven of nine expert-selected targets, with 70% of top-ten candidates meeting correctness and severity thresholds.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20446", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }