Ahmed Aljohani

Arup Datta, Ahmed Aljohani, Hyunsook Do

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to draft and refactor code, but code that works is not necessarily secure. We evaluate secure code generation using the Instruct Prime, which eliminated compliance-required prompts and cue contamination, and evaluate five instruction-tuned code LLMs using a zero-shot baseline and a three-round reflexion prompting approach. Security is measured using the Insecure Code Detector (ICD), and results are reported by measuring Repair, Regression, and NetGain metrics, considering the programming language and CWE family. Our findings show that insecurity remains common at the first round: roughly 25-33% of programs are insecure at a zero-shot baseline (t0 ). Weak cryptography/config-dependent bugs are the hardest to avoid while templated ones like XSS, code injection, and hard-coded secrets are handled more reliably. Python yields the highest secure rates; C and C# are the lowest, with Java, JS, PHP, and C++ in the middle. Reflexion prompting improves security for all models, improving average accuracy from 70.74% at t0 to 79.43% at t3 , with the largest gains in the first round followed by diminishing returns. The trends with Repair, Regression, and NetGain metrics show that applying one to two rounds produces most of the benefits. A replication package is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17065846.

Wajdi Aljedaani, Anthony Peruma, Ahmed Aljohani et al.

Test smells are defined as sub-optimal design choices developers make when implementing test cases. Hence, similar to code smells, the research community has produced numerous test smell detection tools to investigate the impact of test smells on the quality and maintenance of test suites. However, little is known about the characteristics, type of smells, target language, and availability of these published tools. In this paper, we provide a detailed catalog of all known, peer-reviewed, test smell detection tools. We start with performing a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed scientific publications to construct a catalog of 22 tools. Then, we perform a comparative analysis to identify the smell types detected by each tool and other salient features that include programming language, testing framework support, detection strategy, and adoption, among others. From our findings, we discover tools that detect test smells in Java, Scala, Smalltalk, and C++ test suites, with Java support favored by most tools. These tools are available as command-line and IDE plugins, among others. Our analysis also shows that most tools overlap in detecting specific smell types, such as General Fixture. Further, we encounter four types of techniques these tools utilize to detect smells. We envision our study as a one-stop source for researchers and practitioners in determining the tool appropriate for their needs. Our findings also empower the community with information to guide future tool development.