Are We SOLID Yet? An Empirical Study on Prompting LLMs to Detect Design Principle Violations
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866915477567045632 |
|---|---|
| author | Pehlivan, Fatih Ergüzen, Arçin Ülkü Yengejeh, Sahand Moslemi Lami, Mayasah Koyuncu, Anil |
| author_facet | Pehlivan, Fatih Ergüzen, Arçin Ülkü Yengejeh, Sahand Moslemi Lami, Mayasah Koyuncu, Anil |
| contents | Traditional static analysis methods struggle to detect semantic design flaws, such as violations of the SOLID principles, which require a strong understanding of object-oriented design patterns and principles. Existing solutions typically focus on individual SOLID principles or specific programming languages, leaving a gap in the ability to detect violations across all five principles in multi-language codebases. This paper presents a new approach: a methodology that leverages tailored prompt engineering to assess LLMs on their ability to detect SOLID violations across multiple languages. We present a benchmark of four leading LLMs-CodeLlama, DeepSeekCoder, QwenCoder, and GPT-4o Mini-on their ability to detect violations of all five SOLID principles. For this evaluation, we construct a new benchmark dataset of 240 manually validated code examples. Using this dataset, we test four distinct prompt strategies inspired by established zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought techniques to systematically measure their impact on detection accuracy. Our emerging results reveal a stark hierarchy among models, with GPT-4o Mini decisively outperforming others, yet even struggles with challenging principles like DIP. Crucially, we show that prompt strategy has a dramatic impact, but no single strategy is universally best; for instance, a deliberative ENSEMBLE prompt excels at OCP detection while a hint-based EXAMPLE prompt is superior for DIP violations. Across all experiments, detection accuracy is heavily influenced by language characteristics and degrades sharply with increasing code complexity. These initial findings demonstrate that effective, AI-driven design analysis requires not a single best model, but a tailored approach that matches the right model and prompt to the specific design context, highlighting the potential of LLMs to support maintainability through AI-assisted code analysis. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2509_03093 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Are We SOLID Yet? An Empirical Study on Prompting LLMs to Detect Design Principle Violations Pehlivan, Fatih Ergüzen, Arçin Ülkü Yengejeh, Sahand Moslemi Lami, Mayasah Koyuncu, Anil Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence Traditional static analysis methods struggle to detect semantic design flaws, such as violations of the SOLID principles, which require a strong understanding of object-oriented design patterns and principles. Existing solutions typically focus on individual SOLID principles or specific programming languages, leaving a gap in the ability to detect violations across all five principles in multi-language codebases. This paper presents a new approach: a methodology that leverages tailored prompt engineering to assess LLMs on their ability to detect SOLID violations across multiple languages. We present a benchmark of four leading LLMs-CodeLlama, DeepSeekCoder, QwenCoder, and GPT-4o Mini-on their ability to detect violations of all five SOLID principles. For this evaluation, we construct a new benchmark dataset of 240 manually validated code examples. Using this dataset, we test four distinct prompt strategies inspired by established zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought techniques to systematically measure their impact on detection accuracy. Our emerging results reveal a stark hierarchy among models, with GPT-4o Mini decisively outperforming others, yet even struggles with challenging principles like DIP. Crucially, we show that prompt strategy has a dramatic impact, but no single strategy is universally best; for instance, a deliberative ENSEMBLE prompt excels at OCP detection while a hint-based EXAMPLE prompt is superior for DIP violations. Across all experiments, detection accuracy is heavily influenced by language characteristics and degrades sharply with increasing code complexity. These initial findings demonstrate that effective, AI-driven design analysis requires not a single best model, but a tailored approach that matches the right model and prompt to the specific design context, highlighting the potential of LLMs to support maintainability through AI-assisted code analysis. |
| title | Are We SOLID Yet? An Empirical Study on Prompting LLMs to Detect Design Principle Violations |
| topic | Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03093 |