Niels Mündler
Publications
SecPI: Secure Code Generation with Reasoning Models via Security Reasoning Internalization
Reasoning language models (RLMs) are increasingly used in programming. Yet, even state-of-the-art RLMs frequently introduce critical security vulnerabilities in generated code. Prior training-based approaches for secure code generation face a critical limitation that prevents their direct application to RLMs: they rely on costly, manually curated security datasets covering only a limited set of vulnerabilities. At the inference level, generic security reminders consistently degrade functional correctness while triggering only shallow ad-hoc vulnerability analysis. To address these problems, we present SecPI, a fine-tuning pipeline that teaches RLMs to internalize structured security reasoning, producing secure code by default without any security instructions at inference time. SecPI filters existing general-purpose coding datasets for security-relevant tasks using an LLM-based classifier, generates high-quality security reasoning traces with a teacher model guided by a structured prompt that systematically enumerates relevant CWEs and mitigations, and fine-tunes the target model on pairs of inputs with no security prompt and teacher reasoning traces -- as a result, the model learns to reason about security autonomously rather than in response to explicit instructions. An extensive evaluation on security benchmarks with state-of-the-art open-weight reasoning models validates the effectiveness of our approach. For instance, SecPI improves the percentage of functionally correct and secure generations for QwQ 32B from 48.2% to 62.2% (+14.0 points) on CWEval and from 18.2% to 22.0% on BaxBench. Further investigation also reveals strong cross-CWE and cross-language generalization beyond training vulnerabilities. Even when trained only on injection-related CWEs, QwQ 32B generates correct and secure code 9.9% more frequently on held-out memory-safety CWEs.
CodeTaste: Can LLMs Generate Human-Level Code Refactorings?
Large language model (LLM) coding agents can generate working code, but their solutions often accumulate complexity, duplication, and architectural debt. Human developers address such issues through refactoring: behavior-preserving program transformations that improve structure and maintainability. In this paper, we investigate if LLM agents (i) can execute refactorings reliably and (ii) identify the refactorings that human developers actually chose in real codebases. We present CodeTaste, a benchmark of refactoring tasks mined from large-scale multi-file changes in open-source repositories. To score solutions, we combine repository test suites with custom static checks that verify removal of undesired patterns and introduction of desired patterns using dataflow reasoning. Our experimental results indicate a clear gap across frontier models: agents perform well when refactorings are specified in detail, but often fail to discover the human refactoring choices when only presented with a focus area for improvement. A propose-then-implement decomposition improves alignment, and selecting the best-aligned proposal before implementation can yield further gains. CodeTaste provides an evaluation target and a potential preference signal for aligning coding agents with human refactoring decisions in realistic codebases.
Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding Agents?
A widespread practice in software development is to tailor coding agents to repositories using context files, such as AGENTS.md, by either manually or automatically generating them. Although this practice is strongly encouraged by agent developers, there is currently no rigorous investigation into whether such context files are actually effective for real-world tasks. In this work, we study this question and evaluate coding agents' task completion performance in two complementary settings: established SWE-bench tasks from popular repositories, with LLM-generated context files following agent-developer recommendations, and a novel collection of issues from repositories containing developer-committed context files. Across multiple coding agents and LLMs, we find that context files tend to reduce task success rates compared to providing no repository context, while also increasing inference cost by over 20%. Behaviorally, both LLM-generated and developer-provided context files encourage broader exploration (e.g., more thorough testing and file traversal), and coding agents tend to respect their instructions. Ultimately, we conclude that unnecessary requirements from context files make tasks harder, and human-written context files should describe only minimal requirements.