Abstract:CI/CD workflows have become executable operational policy: they decide what gets built, tested, released, and deployed, and they mediate how maintainers interact with delivery infrastructure. That makes them an important measurement point for cyber-systems engineering. Recent large language model (LLM) work shows that workflow stages can be recognized directly from configuration files, but stage labels alone do not tell us whether a workflow is brittle, unusual for its ecosystem, or worth revising first. We present an LLM-based CI/CD analysis pipeline that combines repository enrichment, anti-pattern detection, stage mining, and recommendation generation over a large GitHub corpus. Starting from 59,550 repositories with at least 1,000 stars, we identify 34,225 projects with CI/CD and collect 127,559 configuration files. Across 75,201 analyzed workflows, the anti-pattern detector reports 434,769 findings, dominated by reliability and maintainability issues. Across 59,906 configurations, stage usage differs significantly by language ($χ^2 = 4168.88$, $p < 0.001$, Cramer's $V = 0.063$), and domain analysis shows distinct operational profiles, including higher release and cache usage in mobile projects. For repository-level recommendation generation, few-shot prompting performs best overall, averaging 8.25 recommendations per repository with 96.1% YAML-valid snippets. Taken together, the results argue for CI/CD observability that combines diagnosis, context, and human review rather than treating workflow mining as a stage-classification problem alone.
Abstract:Existing methods for testing deep neural networks (DNNs) primarily prioritize test inputs likely to reveal model faults under a fixed labeling budget. In practice, choosing that budget is difficult: too little testing misses failures, while too much incurs unnecessary labeling costs. This work studies the stopping problem in DNN testing. We formulate testing as a cost--benefit decision process in which labeling an input incurs cost $c$ and discovering a fault yields value $v$. Based on this formulation, we introduce \textit{AdaStop}, a framework that estimates the marginal fault discovery rate during testing and stops labeling when the estimated rate falls below the threshold $τ= c/v$. Experiments across multiple datasets, architectures, and selection strategies show that $65$--$84\%$ of faults can be discovered using only $9$--$31\%$ of the labeling budget.