pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06717 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy

Georgios Evangelopoulos, Nghi D. Q. Bui

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.AI
keywords coding agentsproactivityautonomyinsight policymixed initiative interactionagent evaluationlong-horizon taskssoftware development
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coding agents need evaluation by insight policy quality to achieve useful proactivity beyond autonomy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that autonomous coding agents handling long-horizon tasks across repositories and lifecycles must demonstrate proactivity by noticing changes, connecting signals, and deciding when to interrupt without being asked. This requires judging agents on the quality and improvement of an insight policy that selects what matters next, gathers supporting evidence, chooses whether to present findings, and adapts based on feedback. The distinction matters because unsolicited agent actions can help or hinder developers depending on whether they reflect genuine insight rather than mere activity. Grounded in mixed-initiative interaction principles, the work supplies a three-level taxonomy and concrete evaluation criteria to guide development of such agents.

Core claim

Proactive coding agents should be evaluated by the quality and improvement of their insight policy: the policy that decides what matters next, what evidence supports it, whether to show it, and how to adapt after feedback. This view separates proactivity from autonomy and supplies a three-level taxonomy of Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware behaviors along with an active user simulation protocol that targets Insight Decision Quality, Context Grounding Score, and Learning Lift.

What carries the argument

The insight policy, which governs decisions on what information to generate, when to surface it, and how to update it from feedback in long-horizon coding workflows.

If this is right

  • Agents will be compared against five practical criteria derived from mixed-initiative principles rather than task completion alone.
  • Proactivity is organized into three explicit levels—Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware—allowing progressive capability assessment.
  • Evaluation uses an active user simulation protocol that measures Insight Decision Quality, Context Grounding Score, and Learning Lift as primary targets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This framing encourages agent architectures that maintain and update cross-session preferences as part of routine operation.
  • Simulation-based testing may replace or supplement static benchmarks when assessing when an agent should interrupt a developer.
  • The approach implies that training signals for agents should reward evidence-based relevance decisions more than raw action volume.

Load-bearing premise

Proactivity can be cleanly separated from autonomy and that insight-policy metrics will reliably distinguish useful unsolicited behavior from merely active behavior in real developer workflows.

What would settle it

A controlled study in which agents scoring higher on Insight Decision Quality and Context Grounding Score produce no measurable gain in developer productivity or satisfaction compared with purely autonomous agents in the same repository tasks.

read the original abstract

Coding agents are rapidly changing the landscape of software development, moving from inline completion to autonomous systems that edit repositories, open pull requests, respond to issues, and run scheduled or webhook triggered routines across the development life cycle. The next generation is increasingly described as proactive and long-horizon: agents should notice relevant changes before the developer asks, connect signals across tools, decide when to interrupt, and carry preferences across sessions. Yet the field still lacks a clear account of what proactivity means for software development, how it differs from autonomy, what acceptance criteria proactive long-horizon tasks should satisfy, and which metrics determine whether unsolicited agent behavior is useful rather than merely active. Proactive coding agents should be evaluated by the quality and improvement of their insight policy: the policy that decides what matters next, what evidence supports it, whether to show it, and how to adapt after feedback. This view is grounded in the principles of mixed initiative interaction. We propose a three level taxonomy of proactivity (Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware), compare contemporary coding agents against five practical criteria, and sketch an active user simulation protocol with three evaluation targets: Insight Decision Quality (IDQ), Context Grounding Score (CGS), and Learning Lift

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a conceptual proposal arguing that coding agents require proactivity beyond mere autonomy. It defines proactivity in terms of an 'insight policy' that decides what matters next, gathers supporting evidence, determines whether to interrupt the user, and adapts based on feedback. The paper introduces a three-level taxonomy (Reactive, Scheduled, Situation Aware), compares contemporary agents against five practical criteria, and sketches an active user simulation protocol with three evaluation targets—Insight Decision Quality (IDQ), Context Grounding Score (CGS), and Learning Lift—grounded in mixed-initiative interaction principles.

Significance. If the framework is adopted, it could help standardize evaluation of long-horizon agent behaviors in software development by shifting focus from raw autonomy to the usefulness of unsolicited actions. The explicit grounding in mixed-initiative literature is a conceptual strength that distinguishes this from purely engineering-oriented agent papers. However, as a definitional proposal without empirical validation, formal definitions of the metrics, or worked examples, its significance hinges on community uptake and subsequent testing rather than immediate applicability.

major comments (1)
  1. The active user simulation protocol and its three targets (IDQ, CGS, Learning Lift) are introduced as the core evaluation approach, yet no operational definitions, scoring procedures, or illustrative examples of how an insight policy would be measured in practice are provided. This is load-bearing for the central claim that these metrics reliably distinguish useful proactivity from mere activity.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract references a comparison of agents against 'five practical criteria' but does not enumerate them; including the list (or a table) would make the contribution more self-contained.
  2. The term 'insight policy' is introduced without an explicit early definition or pseudocode sketch, which could improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with the mixed-initiative framing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the conceptual contribution of grounding proactivity in mixed-initiative principles. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarifications to improve the manuscript's actionability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The active user simulation protocol and its three targets (IDQ, CGS, Learning Lift) are introduced as the core evaluation approach, yet no operational definitions, scoring procedures, or illustrative examples of how an insight policy would be measured in practice are provided. This is load-bearing for the central claim that these metrics reliably distinguish useful proactivity from mere activity.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript currently sketches the active user simulation protocol and the three targets (Insight Decision Quality, Context Grounding Score, and Learning Lift) at a high level without operational definitions, explicit scoring procedures, or worked examples. This limits immediate usability and weakens the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to supply: (1) operational definitions for each metric (e.g., IDQ as a weighted combination of goal alignment, evidence sufficiency, and interruption appropriateness scored on a 1-5 rubric); (2) concrete scoring procedures including inter-rater guidelines and aggregation rules; and (3) a detailed illustrative example applying the protocol to a hypothetical insight policy in a multi-file refactoring scenario. These additions will make the evaluation approach more concrete while preserving the paper's position-paper character. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper is a conceptual framing proposal that introduces a new three-level taxonomy of proactivity (Reactive, Scheduled, Situation Aware), five practical criteria for comparison, and three evaluation targets (Insight Decision Quality, Context Grounding Score, Learning Lift) without any mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or numerical predictions. The central claim—that evaluation should focus on insight-policy quality—is explicitly grounded in external mixed-initiative interaction literature rather than reducing to self-citations, self-definitions, or inputs by construction. No load-bearing steps in the provided abstract or framing reduce claims to their own definitions or prior author work; the proposal remains self-contained as definitional stance and sketch.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the untested premise that mixed-initiative interaction principles transfer directly to coding agents and that an 'insight policy' is a measurable, improvable object. No free parameters are fitted; the main invented entity is the insight policy itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Principles of mixed initiative interaction apply to software development agents
    Invoked to ground the proactivity view and the insight-policy framing.
invented entities (1)
  • insight policy no independent evidence
    purpose: The decision mechanism that determines what the agent should notice, whether to act, and how to adapt
    New construct introduced to operationalize proactivity; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5513 in / 1279 out tokens · 30714 ms · 2026-05-11T01:01:16.238337+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi: 10.1109/ASEW67777.2025. 00049. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18842. Amazon Web Services. Amazon q developer.https://aws.amazon.com/q/developer/,

    work page doi:10.1109/asew67777.2025 2025

  2. [2]

    2026 agentic coding trends report, 2026a

    Anthropic. 2026 agentic coding trends report, 2026a. URLhttps://resources.anthropic.com/ 2026-agentic-coding-trends-report. Anthropic. Introducing routines in claude code, 2026b. URL https://claude.com/blog/ introducing-routines-in-claude-code. Anthropic Claude Help Center. Schedule recurring tasks in claude cowork,

    2026

  3. [3]

    Anysphere

    URL https: //support.claude.com/en/articles/13854387-schedule-recurring-tasks-in-claude-cowork. Anysphere. Cursor: The ai code editor.https://cursor.com,

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.01627. V. Barres, H. Dong, S. Ray, X. Si, and K. Narasimhan. tau2-bench: Evaluating conversational agents in a dual-control environment,

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982. O. Berkovitch, S. Caduri, N. Kahlon, A. Efros, A. Caciularu, and I. Dagan. Identifying user goals from ui trajectories,

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14314. A. Blackington. BMAD-METHOD: Breakthrough method for agile AI-driven development.https: //github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD,

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04660. G. Brero, A. Eden, D. Chakrabarti, M. Gerstgrasser, A. Greenwald, V. Li, and D. C. Parkes. Stackelberg pomdp: A reinforcement learning approach for economic design,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.03852. N. D. Bui. Building effective ai coding agents for the terminal: Scaffolding, harness, context engineer- ing, and lessons learned,

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05344. Charm. Crush: An agentic coding tool for the terminal.https://github.com/charmbracelet/crush,

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01304 , year=

    D. Chen et al. Coder: Issue resolving with multi-agent and task graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01304,

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    V. Chen, A. Zhu, S. Zhao, H. Mozannar, D. Sontag, and A. Talwalkar. Need help? designing proactive ai assistants for programming. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–18,

    2025

  12. [12]

    Y.Gan,C.Li,J.Xie,L.Wen,M.Purver,andM.Poesio

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17158. Y.Gan,C.Li,J.Xie,L.Wen,M.Purver,andM.Poesio. Clarq-llm: Abenchmarkformodelsclarifyingand requesting information in task-oriented dialog,

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06097. P. Gauthier. Aider: Ai pair programming in your terminal.https://aider.chat,

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03659 , year=

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03659. A.E.Hassan, H.Li, D.Lin, B.Adams, T.-H.Chen, Y.Kashiwa, andD.Qiu. Agenticsoftwareengineering, foundational pillars and a research roadmap.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06216,

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    C. E. Jimenez, J. Yang, A. Wettig, S. Yao, K. Pei, O. Press, and K. R. Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11,

    2024

  16. [16]

    PROPER Agents: Proactivity Driven Personalized Agents for Advancing Knowledge Gap Navigation

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09926. LangChain. agents-from-scratch: Ambient agent email assistant, 2025a. URLhttps://github.com/ langchain-ai/agents-from-scratch. LangChain. Introducing ambient agents, 2025b. URL https://blog.langchain.com/ introducing-ambient-agents/. C. Li et al. Advances and frontiers of llm-based issue resolution in software engineer...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02515. Y. Lu, S. Yang, C. Qian, G. Chen, Q. Luo, Y. Wu, H. Wang, X. Cong, Z. Zhang, Y. Lin, W. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, F. Liu, and M. Sun. Proactive agent: Shifting LLM agents from reactive responses to active assistance,

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12361. P. Maes. Agents that reduce work and information overload.Communications of the ACM, 37(7): 30–40,

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    Mehrotra, V

    13 Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy A. Mehrotra, V. Pejovic, J. Vermeulen, R. Hendley, and M. Musolesi. My phone and me: Understanding people’s receptivity to mobile notifications. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1021–1032. ACM,

    2016

  20. [20]

    Proactive agent research environment: Simulating active users to evaluate proactive assistants

    D. Nathani, C. Zhang, C. Huan, J. Shan, Y. Yang, A. Patel, Z. Gan, W. Y. Wang, M. Saxon, and X. E. Wang. Proactive agent research environment: Simulating active users to evaluate proactive assistants.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00842,

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Okoshi, J

    T. Okoshi, J. Ramos, H. Nozaki, J. Nakazawa, A. K. Dey, and H. Tokuda. Reducing users’ perceived mental effort due to interruptive notifications in multi-device mobile environments. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp), pages 475–486. ACM,

    2015

  22. [22]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442. G. Pasternak, D. Rajagopal, J. White, D. Atreja, M. Thomas, G. Hurn-Maloney, and A. Lewis. Beyond reactivity: Measuring proactive problem solving in LLM agents,

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  23. [23]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2510.19771. M. V. Pham, H. N. Phan, H. N. Phan, C. L. Chi, T. N. Nguyen, and N. D. Bui. Swe-synth: Synthesizing verifiable bug-fix data to enable large language models in resolving real-world bugs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14757,

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    H. N. Phan, T. N. Nguyen, P. X. Nguyen, and N. D. Bui. Hyperagent: Generalist software engineering agents to solve coding tasks at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16299,

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04477. R. Sapkota, K. I. Roumeliotis, and M. Karkee. AI agents vs. agentic AI: A conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges.Information Fusion,

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05508. Q. Shi, D. Wang, H. Zhou, J. Li, J. Xu, J. Gao, J. Hao, and R. He. Long-term task-oriented agent: Proactive long-term intent maintenance in dynamic environments,

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2601.09382. B. Shneiderman and P. Maes. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents.Interactions, 4(6):42–61,

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02208. M. Suri, P. Mathur, N. Lipka, F. Dernoncourt, R. A. Rossi, and D. Manocha. Structured uncertainty guided clarification for LLM agents,

    work page arXiv

  29. [29]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08798. Y. Tang, H. Tang, T. Cao, L. Nguyen, A. Zhang, X. Cao, C. Liu, W. Ding, and Y. Li. ProAgentBench: Evaluating LLM agents for proactive assistance with real-world data,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Proagentbench: Evaluating llm agents for proactive assistance with real-world data

    URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2602.04482. W. Tao et al. Magis: Llm-based multi-agent framework for github issue resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17927,

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    com/2026/03/05/cursor-is-rolling-out-a-new-system-for-agentic-coding/

    URLhttps://techcrunch. com/2026/03/05/cursor-is-rolling-out-a-new-system-for-agentic-coding/. M. Tufano, A. Agarwal, J. Jang, R. Zilouchian Moghaddam, and N. Sundaresan. Autodev: Automated AI-driven development,

    2026

  32. [32]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08299. X. Wang, Y. Chen, L. Yuan, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, H. Peng, and H. Ji. Codeact: Your llm agent acts better when generating code. InICML, 2024a. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01030. X. Wang, B. Li, Y. Song, F. F. Xu, X. Tang, M. Zhuge, J. Pan, Y. Song, B. Li, J. Singh, H. H. Zhang, Y. Yang, S. Yao, B. Vasilescu, and G. Neubig....

    work page arXiv

  33. [33]

    AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08155. 15 Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy C. S. Xia et al. Agentless: Demystifying llm-based software engineering agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01489,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    B. Yang, L. Xu, L. Zeng, Y. Guo, S. Jiang, W. Lu, K. Liu, H. Xiang, X. Jiang, G. Xing, and Z. Yan. ProAgent: Harnessing on-demand sensory contexts for proactive LLM agent systems, 2025a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06721. B. Yang, L. Xu, L. Zeng, K. Liu, S. Jiang, W. Lu, H. Chen, X. Jiang, G. Xing, and Z. Yan. ContextAgent: Context-aware proactive LLM ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12045. Y. Zhang, H. Ruan, Z. Fan, and A. Roychoudhury. Autocoderover: Autonomous program improvement. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pages 1592–1604. ACM,

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  36. [36]

    doi: 10.1145/3650212.3680384. Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Zhu, P. Du, J. Miao, X. Lu, W. Xu, Y. Hao, S. Cai, X. Wang, et al. Clawbench: Can ai agents complete everyday online tasks?arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08523,

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.3680384

  37. [37]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19622. X. Zhou, V. Chen, Z. Z. Wang, G. Neubig, M. Sap, and X. Wang. ToM-SWE: User mental modeling for software engineering agents,

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21903. 16

    work page arXiv