Michael Fu

Michael Fu, Qiyue Mei, Patanamon Thongtanunam et al.

Automated vulnerability repair aims to reduce the time and effort required to patch security flaws from a vulnerability triage report. Recent agentic AI approaches have shown promising results in automated program repair. However, vulnerability repair demands richer program context than general bug repair - context that security engineers routinely assemble in practice but that existing agentic approaches do not engineer. We identify three critical gaps: code-structure context capturing cross-file data flows and memory operation patterns, runtime-execution context revealing crash semantics and memory origins, and commit-history context recovering how fragile code patterns were introduced. We present AgenticRepair, an agentic vulnerability repair framework that addresses the gaps through multi-faceted program context engineering. AgenticRepair orchestrates three specialized LLM subagents to engineer the contexts, which are then embedded into the memory of a dedicated repair subagent for context-conditioned patch synthesis. Evaluated on SEC-Bench comprising 300 real-world instances with sanitizer-based patch verification, AgenticRepair achieves a 73% success rate, substantially outperforming the strongest baseline by 29%. Our ablation study confirms that the three context facets are mutually complementary, and that multi-agent scaffolding and base-model capacity each play an essential role. Collectively, these findings establish multi-faceted program context engineering as a promising design direction for agentic vulnerability repair.

Rui Yang, Michael Fu, Kla Tantithamthavorn et al.

Software engineering teams now deploy AI coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot) as first-class productivity tools, installing domain-specific skill files to tailor agent behavior to project APIs, framework conventions, and organizational workflows. These complex Markdown files are easily downloaded from public registries with a single npx skills add command and no real security screening, representing a novel supply-chain attack surface: a malicious skill file can silently reprogram agent behavior, exfiltrating credentials, injecting backdoors into generated code, or redirecting agent actions to attacker-controlled endpoints. The threat is not hypothetical: recent reports document hundreds of malicious skill packages in public registries, including organized campaigns that distributed credential-stealing infostealers via fake productivity skills. No systematic toolchain defense exists for this attack surface. We present SkillGate, a deployable security gateway that screens AI skill packages before coding agent installation. SkillGate uses a hybrid regex-prefilter + LLM-judge pipeline: safe-signal files bypass the LLM entirely (skip savings); flagged files have only their matched snippet windows sent to the judge, not the full content (snippet savings). We answer four research questions covering detection effectiveness, screening cost, runtime overhead, and false positive behavior on the SkillsBench benchmark against two existing tools. On SkillsBench (n=1,650, 9.1% malicious), SkillGate achieves F1=0.817, FPR=1.13% while reducing LLM input tokens by 77% vs. full-file screening, and outperforming existing tools by 5-6x on threshold-independent AUPRC (0.830 vs. 0.144/0.162).

Eduardo Oliveira, Michael Fu, Patanamon Thongtanunam et al.

Code review is central to software engineering education but hard to scale in capstone projects due to tight deadlines, uneven peer feedback, and limited prior experience. We investigate an LLM-as-reviewer integrated directly into GitHub pull requests (human-in-the-loop) across two cohorts (more than 100 students, 2023--2024). Using a mixed-methods design -- GitHub data, reflective reports, and a targeted survey -- we examine engagement and responsiveness as behavioral indicators of self-regulated learning processes. Quantitatively, the 2024 cohort produced more iterative activity (1176 vs. 581 PRs), while technical issues observed in 2023 (227 failed AI attempts) dropped to zero after tool and instructional refinements. Despite different adoption levels (93\% vs. 50\% of teams using the tool), responsiveness was stable: 32\% (2023) and 33\% (2024) of successfully AI-reviewed PRs were followed by subsequent commits on the same PR. Qualitatively, students used the LLM's structured comments to focus reviews and discuss code quality, while guidance reduced over-reliance. We contribute: (i) an in-workflow design for an AI reviewer that scaffolds learning while mitigating cognitive offloading; (ii) a repeated cross sectional comparison across two cohorts in authentic settings; (iii) a mixed-methods analysis combining objective GitHub metrics with student self-reports; and (iv) evidence-based pedagogical recommendations for responsible, student-led AI-assisted review.