Writing Bug Reports for Software Repair Agents: What Information Matters Most? — AI agent app

Vincenzo Luigi Bruno, Alessandro Giagnorio, Daniele Bifolco, Leon Wienges, Massimiliano Di Penta, Gabriele Bavota/Writing Bug Reports for Software Repair Agents: What Information Matters Most?Unknown

Software development is increasingly moving toward agentic-first workflows. This includes AI agents responsible for generating initial fixes for submitted issue reports. In this setting, issue reports are no longer merely documentation for human maintainers; they become the primary task specification for the agent. However, little is known about how such reports should be written to maximize the agent's chances of producing a correct fix. We study what makes a bug report agent-ready. Starting from the SWE-bench Verified benchmark (i.e., a collection of 500 real repository issues with human-written gold patches and test suites for evaluating generated fixes) we manually classify each issue by change type (e.g., bug fix vs refactoring) and annotate each sentence with its information type, such as observed behavior, expected behavior, reproduction steps, localization cues, and suggested fixes. We focus on the 441 issues representing bug reports, and we run on them mini-swe-agent using three LLM backbones (i.e., GPT-5-mini, MiniMax M2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash). We then fit a binomial regression model to estimate the incremental association between each information type and agent success, controlling for confounding factors. Our results suggest that agentic-first reports benefit most from information that narrows the agent's search and repair space. Localization cues, such as references to affected code areas, are positively associated with successful repairs, while suggested fixes, expressed either in code or natural language, show some of the strongest positive associations with pass probability. An ablation study removing selected information types confirms that agents benefit less from information traditionally useful to humans, such as reproduction steps, and more from sentences that expose a repair direction, either through bug localization or a suggested fix.

agent app

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed4h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

48 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

48Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 90 days0 +0.0%

30d90d1y

Commit activity · 52 weeksActive contributor activity

LowHigh

JunSepDecMarNow

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 48/100

Below average

Alternatives

crewai

26.1k · Multi-Agent

autogen

42.7k · Multi-Agent

smolagents

11.2k · Coding

openai-agents-python

9.4k · Multi-Agent

Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler4h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing