Agentic Auto-Research is Fuzz Testing

Autonomous research agents can generate experiments faster than researchers can validate them. Researchers have responded by scaling the proposer and ranking more samples with a learned judge or human reviewers. We argue that this *generate-and-rank* paradigm misses the problem of sparse feedback. Within a declared research problem, an agent follows the control loop of a greybox fuzzer: it proposes a candidate, executes it, observes feedback, and chooses what to try next. A fuzzer rarely finds a bug, but coverage makes partial progress observable on every execution. Fuzzers then use that signal to mutate inputs and allocate effort, rather than only to rank completed runs. Auto-research needs the same two capabilities. First, each experiment should expose a cheap, dense signal of epistemic progress before final scientific validation is available. Second, that signal should determine the next intervention so that the agent searches rather than repeatedly samples. Because the optimized progress signal is guidance rather than a verdict, final validation must still decide what counts as a discovery using evidence protected from adaptive reuse. We propose controlled tests of whether candidate signals predict validated progress, whether feedback-directed search yields more validated discoveries per unit cost than repeated sampling, and whether protected validation reduces false discoveries. Feedback architecture, not only generation, is a central bottleneck in auto-research.

Is Progressive Disclosure All You Need for Long-Context Agents?

Long-document question answering usually forces a choice between loading the whole document into the context window and bolting on a separate retriever. Agentic AI suggests a broader option, giving the agent the document path and letting it decide how and what to read. Agent Skills, a standard for packaging expertise into folders an agent loads on demand, supply a ready mechanism: progressive disclosure, which exposes only what a query needs, from a short description down to the specific passages. Practitioners rapidly adopted this pattern for book-length understanding tasks, but the evidence to support such choices has been anecdotal. We run the first controlled study of the pattern, comparing raw-document navigation and several designs of Agent Skills packs against a classical hybrid retriever across three agent harnesses and three model families on InfiniteBench. On a single book, the gain depends on the harness, running large when the agent navigates the raw document poorly but near zero when a strong agent harness already divides and retrieves on its own. When scaling up to tasks that span many books, raw-document navigation collapses while one-level progressive disclosure degrades more slowly and pulls ahead. A second, deeper routing level never helps and sometimes breaks accuracy outright, so one level is enough. Progressive disclosure buys context, not intelligence: it is redundant while a strong agent can locate the right passages itself, and decisive once the corpus grows too large to navigate by reading.