Papers › Can LLMs Test Terminal User Interfaces?
Can LLMs Test Terminal User Interfaces?
Chao Peng, Ruida Hu, Ajitha Rajan, Tegawendé F Bissyandé, Jacques Klein, Cuiyun Gao
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Terminal User Interfaces (TUIs) combine the stateful, screen-oriented behaviour of GUIs with terminal deployment and are now common in developer tools. Yet they lack a dedicated testing methodology. We survey 197 real-world TUI applications: only 12% of test code exercises the interface, and 45% of those tests never send input, checking a static frame instead. We turn these applications into a headless benchmark spanning ratatui/Rust, bubbletea/Go, textual/Python, and ink/TypeScript, packaging each as an instrumented Docker image. We record line and widget coverage where reliable, rendered terminal states, and crashes. Under equal wall-clock budgets, we compare four frontier LLMs with random exploration. No model dominates. Random is a strong time-budgeted baseline, but its crash advantage comes from higher throughput: per interaction, LLM guidance is more efficient and uniquely reaches input-gated faults. Automatically deriving launch inputs yields the largest practical gain, enabling applications that otherwise never start. Line coverage poorly predicts crash discovery, weakening it as a proxy for test effectiveness. Automated TUI testing is feasible but far from solved, and honest baselines matter more than model choice. We release the coverage tool tuicov at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuicov and the testing framework tuibot at https://github.com/tui-testing/tuibot.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.03743")
Code
Syntology Ran 9 of 9 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 9 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 9 samples from 2 repositories, 9 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
9 samples harvested; 9 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
1e6beec9f1848a60 · report
1d2df3f0f117473c · report
c865fb88e9a79cde · report
d13b1f314eae32ac · report
b7e42a0d48fbc6b8 · report
59fbe599a8d2d6de · report
3651aace47411392 · report
f12b4c26b065495c · report
1a5bcb6f5c36002e · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.03743, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections