TDAD: Test-Driven Agentic Development - Reducing Code Regressions in AI Coding Agents via Graph-Based Impact Analysis

Pepe Alonso, Sergio Yovine, Victor A. Braberman · Mar 18, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed. Current benchmarks focus almost exclusively on resolution rate, leaving regression behavior under-studied. This paper presents TDAD (Test-Driven Agentic Development), an open-source tool that performs pre-change impact analysis for AI coding agents. TDAD builds a dependency map between source code and tests so that before committing a patch, the agent knows which tests to verify and can self-correct. The map is delivered as a lightweight agent skill -- a static text file the agent queries at runtime. Evaluated on SWE-bench Verified with two open-weight models running on consumer hardware (Qwen3-Coder 30B, 100 instances; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, 25 instances), TDAD reduced regressions by 70% (6.08% to 1.82%) compared to a vanilla baseline. In contrast, adding TDD procedural instructions without targeted test context increased regressions to 9.94% -- worse than no intervention at all. When deployed as an agent skill with a different model and framework, TDAD improved issue-resolution rate from 24% to 32%, confirming that surfacing contextual information outperforms prescribing procedural workflows. All code, data, and logs are publicly available at https://github.com/pepealonso95/TDAD.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Evaluated on SWE-bench Verified with two open-weight models running on consumer hardware (Qwen3-Coder 30B, 100 instances; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, 25 instances), TDAD reduced regressions by 70% (6.08% to 1.82%) compared to a vanilla baseline."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed."

Human Feedback Details

Uses human feedback: No
Feedback types: None
Rater population: Not reported
Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

Evaluation modes:
Agentic eval: None
Quality controls: Not reported
Evidence quality: Low
Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

SWE-benchSWE-bench Verified

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed.
Current benchmarks focus almost exclusively on resolution rate, leaving regression behavior under-studied.
This paper presents TDAD (Test-Driven Agentic Development), an open-source tool that performs pre-change impact analysis for AI coding agents.

Researcher Actions

Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

SWE-bench

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed.
Current benchmarks focus almost exclusively on resolution rate, leaving regression behavior under-studied.
When deployed as an agent skill with a different model and framework, TDAD improved issue-resolution rate from 24% to 32%, confirming that surfacing contextual information outperforms prescribing procedural workflows.

Why It Matters For Eval

AI coding agents can resolve real-world software issues, yet they frequently introduce regressions -- breaking tests that previously passed.
When deployed as an agent skill with a different model and framework, TDAD improved issue-resolution rate from 24% to 32%, confirming that surfacing contextual information outperforms prescribing procedural workflows.

Researcher Checklist

Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Gap: Quality control reporting appears

No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

Detected: SWE-bench, SWE-bench Verified
Gap: Metric reporting is present

No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

The #1 talent network for AI training.

Self-Service

Post a job, get a curated shortlist

Manage your team directly on-platform

Post a Job

Managed Service