Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2602.13723

Compiling Large Multi-Modal Requirement Documents into Runnable Software Systems: From an Agentic Test-Driven Perspective

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly improved programming efficiency by translating natural language into code, yet their performance deteriorates when handling large-scale, multi-modal requirement documents containing hundreds of scenarios, often producing incorrect implementations or missing critical constraints. To address this challenge, we propose ARC (Agentic Requirement Compilation), a framework that compiles DSL-based requirement documents into runnable software systems while automatically generating modular software architecture, comprehensive test suites, and traceability across requirements, design, and code. ARC adopts a bidirectional test-driven agentic workflow, combining a top-down architecture design phase with a bottom-up implementation phase to ensure that generated code satisfies synthesized tests. We evaluate ARC on six runnable web system benchmarks and the AppForge benchmark of 101 mobile app generation tasks. Across three independent trials, ARC consistently outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based baselines, achieving 50.6% more GUI tests passed on average for web systems, a 100% compilation success rate, and a 68.3% test pass rate on AppForge. A user study with 21 participants further shows that users with limited programming experience can write DSL-based requirement documents containing up to 174 scenarios within an average of 5.6 hours to generate maintainable runnable systems, including a real-world ticket-booking application of approximately 10K lines of code.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weiyu Kong, Yun Lin, Xiwen Teoh, Duc-Minh Nguyen, Ruofei Ren, Jiaxin Chang, Haoxu Hu, Haoyu Chen. 2026-08-09. Compiling Large Multi-Modal Requirement Documents into Runnable Software Systems: From an Agentic Test-Driven Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1145/3832196

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