{ "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": "2609.25911", "title": "When Should Dependency Updates Invoke Repair Agents? A Lightweight Routing Study", "summary": "The method replaces route-all or random invocation of repository-level coding agents on dependency-update PRs with a lightweight LinearSVC router using only creation-time titles and bot/dependency flags. Its cost is a small labeled dataset of historical dependency updates, a trivially cheap classical model to train and serve, and the added routing step in the automation pipeline. It can fail by missing roughly half of repairs at the top-20% threshold (0.488 F1), by dataset shift as dependencies and bots change, and by retrospective leakage if full-history signals are accidentally used at deployment time, as the paper itself demonstrates.", "rationale": "The router is cheap to build and clearly reduces LLM spend, but its moderate recall and the small single-dataset evaluation mean the escalation threshold must be validated on the reader's own repositories before production gating.", "technique": "Pre-agent routing for dependency-update repair escalation", "family": "agentes_de_codigo", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-09-22", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25911", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 0, "stars": 0, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "The method replaces route-all or random invocation of repository-level coding agents on dependency-update PRs with a lightweight LinearSVC router using only creation-time titles and bot/dependency flags. Its cost is a small labeled dataset of historical dependency updates, a trivially cheap classical model to train and serve, and the added routing step in the automation pipeline. It can fail by missing roughly half of repairs at the top-20% threshold (0.488 F1), by dataset shift as dependencies and bots change, and by retrospective leakage if full-history signals are accidentally used at deployment time, as the paper itself demonstrates.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25911", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "Router-gated diagnosis reduced actual LLM calls by 66.7% and tokens by 66.1% in a 60-case pilot; a creation-time-safe LinearSVC captured 51.4% of repairs within the top 20% routed PRs, improving calls per captured repair from 6.90 to 2.68.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25911", "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": "" }