Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2507.21382

MAAD: Automate Software Architecture Design through Knowledge-Driven Multi-Agent Collaboration

Abstract

Software architecture design is a critical, yet inherently complex and knowledge-intensive phase of software development. It requires deep domain expertise, development experience, architectural knowledge, careful trade-offs among competing quality attributes, and the ability to adapt to evolving requirements. Traditionally, this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive, and relies heavily on architects, often resulting in limited design alternatives, especially under the pressures of agile development. While Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have shown promising performance across various SE tasks, their application to architecture design remains relatively scarce and requires more exploration, particularly in light of diverse domain knowledge and complex decision-making. To address the challenges, we proposed MAAD (Multi-Agent Architecture Design), an automated framework that employs a knowledge-driven Multi-Agent System (MAS) for architecture design. MAAD orchestrates four specialized agents (i.e., Analyst, Modeler, Designer and Evaluator) to collaboratively interpret requirements specifications and produce architectural blueprints enriched with quality attributes-based evaluation reports. We then evaluated MAAD through a case study and comparative experiments against MetaGPT, a state-of-the-art MAS baseline. Our results show that MAAD's superiority lies in generating comprehensive architectural components and delivering insightful and structured architecture evaluation reports. Feedback from industrial architects across 11 requirements specifications further reinforces MAAD's practical usability. We finally explored the performance of the MAAD framework with three LLMs (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, and Llama 3.3) and found that GPT-4o exhibits better performance in producing architecture design, emphasizing the importance of LLM selection in MAS-driven architecture design.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ruiyin Li, Yiran Zhang, Xiyu Zhou, Peng Liang, Weisong Sun, Jifeng Xuan, Zhi Jin, Yang Liu. 2025-07-28. MAAD: Automate Software Architecture Design through Knowledge-Driven Multi-Agent Collaboration. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21382

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE