> it would send the X-Country header for those blocked countries and it verifies that the feature was not really blocked.

There is no reason to presume that the agent would successfully do this.

You haven't tried it. You don't know. I haven't either, but I can guarantee it would fail; it's provable. The agent would fail at this task. That's what agents do. They fail at tasks from time to time. They are non-deterministic.

If they never failed we wouldn't need tests <------- !!!!!!

That's the whole point. Agents, RIGHT NOW, can generate code, but verifying that what they have created is correct is an unsolved problem.

You have not solved it.

All you are doing is taking one LLM, pointing at the output of the second LLM and saying 'check this'.

That is step 2 on your accuracy list.

> Do you disagree that an agent that simply writes code and uses a linter tool + unit tests is meaningfully different from an LLM that uses those tools but also uses the end product as a human would?

I don't care about this argument. You keep trying to bring in irrelevant side points to this argument; I'm not playing that game.

You said:

> I can empirically show you that this spectrum works as such.

And:

> I don't have empirical proof for 4 -> 5

I'm not playing this game.

What you are, overall, asserting, is that END-TO-END tests, written by agents are reliable.

-

They. are. not.

-

You're not correct, but you're welcome to believe you are.

All I can say is, the burden of proof is on you.

Prove it to everyone by doing it.