Amirali Sajadi

Amirali Sajadi, Tu Nguyen, Kimmie Huynh et al.

LLM-based automated program repair (APR) agents generate patches to fix software bugs with minimal human intervention. These agents often produce long trajectories of reasoning, tool use, and feedback to produce candidate patches. Final patch outcomes show whether a repair attempt succeeded or failed, but they do not show how the agent reached that outcome, or where the process became repetitive or misaligned with the task. This makes agentic repair failures difficult to diagnose, reproduce, and prevent. To help developers address these challenges, we present TraceView, an interactive tool for labeling and visualizing repair trajectories from APR systems. TraceView organizes raw and pre-labeled agentic runs with Thought, Action, and Result components to support semantic relation labeling and diagnosis, and renders the resulting trajectory as graph views. Furthermore, TraceView provides relation filters, patch outcome summaries, metrics, and node-level evidence panels to help users inspect how reasoning, actions, and feedback connect across the various steps of an agentic repair attempt. We evaluate TraceView with five researchers through a survey-based user study. Participants reported that TraceView made trajectories easier to scan and that its overview-to-detail workflow helped them better understand repair behavior. The TraceView source code is available at https://github.com/SOAR-Lab/agent-traj-visualization. A screencast of TraceView is available at https://youtu.be/9ZCh7Ifj2AQ.

Amirali Sajadi, Binh Le, Anh Nguyen et al.

The widespread adoption of conversational LLMs for software development has raised new security concerns regarding the safety of LLM-generated content. Our motivational study outlines ChatGPT's potential in volunteering context-specific information to the developers, promoting safe coding practices. Motivated by this finding, we conduct a study to evaluate the degree of security awareness exhibited by three prominent LLMs: Claude 3, GPT-4, and Llama 3. We prompt these LLMs with Stack Overflow questions that contain vulnerable code to evaluate whether they merely provide answers to the questions or if they also warn users about the insecure code, thereby demonstrating a degree of security awareness. Further, we assess whether LLM responses provide information about the causes, exploits, and the potential fixes of the vulnerability, to help raise users' awareness. Our findings show that all three models struggle to accurately detect and warn users about vulnerabilities, achieving a detection rate of only 12.6% to 40% across our datasets. We also observe that the LLMs tend to identify certain types of vulnerabilities related to sensitive information exposure and improper input neutralization much more frequently than other types, such as those involving external control of file names or paths. Furthermore, when LLMs do issue security warnings, they often provide more information on the causes, exploits, and fixes of vulnerabilities compared to Stack Overflow responses. Finally, we provide an in-depth discussion on the implications of our findings and present a CLI-based prompting tool that can be used to generate significantly more secure LLM responses.

Amirali Sajadi, Kostadin Damevski, Preetha Chatterjee

Large Language Models (LLMs) and their agentic frameworks are increasingly adopted to automate software development tasks such as issue resolution and program repair. While prior work has identified security risks in LLM-generated code, most evaluations have focused on synthetic or isolated settings, leaving open questions about the security of these systems in real-world development contexts. In this study, we present the first large-scale security analysis of LLM-generated patches using 20,000+ issues from the SWE-bench dataset. We evaluate patches produced by a standalone LLM (Llama 3.3) and compare them to developer-written patches. We also assess the security of patches generated by three top-performing agentic frameworks (OpenHands, AutoCodeRover, HoneyComb) on a subset of our data. Finally, we analyze a wide range of code, issue, and project-level factors to understand the conditions under which LLMs and agents are most likely to generate insecure code. Our findings reveal that the standalone LLM introduces nearly 9x more new vulnerabilities than developers, with many of these exhibiting unique patterns not found in developers' code. Agentic workflows also generate a significant number of vulnerabilities, particularly when granting LLMs more autonomy, potentially increasing the likelihood of misinterpreting project context or task requirements. We find that vulnerabilities are more likely to occur in LLM patches associated with a higher number of files, more lines of generated code, and GitHub issues that lack specific code snippets or information about the expected code behavior and steps to reproduce. These results suggest that contextual factors play a critical role in the security of the generated code and point toward the need for proactive risk assessment methods that account for both code and issue-level information to complement existing vulnerability detection tools.

Amirali Sajadi, Tu Nguyen, Kostadin Damevski et al.

Vulnerability detection tools are widely adopted in software projects, yet they often overwhelm maintainers with false positives and non-actionable reports. Automated exploitation systems can help validate these reports; however, existing approaches typically operate in isolation from detection pipelines, failing to leverage readily available metadata such as vulnerability type and source-code location. In this paper, we investigate how reported security vulnerabilities can be assessed in a realistic grey-box exploitation setting that leverages minimal vulnerability metadata, specifically a CWE classification and a vulnerable code location. We introduce Agentic eXploit Engine (AXE), a multi-agent framework for Web application exploitation that maps lightweight detection metadata to concrete exploits through decoupled planning, code exploration, and dynamic execution feedback. Evaluated on the CVE-Bench dataset, AXE achieves a 30% exploitation success rate, a 3x improvement over state-of-the-art black-box baselines. Even in a single-agent configuration, grey-box metadata yields a 1.75x performance gain. Systematic error analysis shows that most failed attempts arise from specific reasoning gaps, including misinterpreted vulnerability semantics and unmet execution preconditions. For successful exploits, AXE produces actionable, reproducible proof-of-concept artifacts, demonstrating its utility in streamlining Web vulnerability triage and remediation. We further evaluate AXE's generalizability through a case study on a recent real-world vulnerability not included in CVE-Bench.