"I'm Not Reading All of That": Understanding Software Engineers' Level of Cognitive Engagement with Agentic Coding Assistants

Agentic AI is increasingly used to coordinate planning, implementation, review, and testing in software development, yet it often offers limited transparency into its decisions and interactions. Many such systems also assume that users can effectively guide the AI's decisions and validate its outputs. This assumption poses a particular challenge for novices, who must simultaneously learn how agentic AI works, how to collaborate with it effectively, and how to evaluate its outputs critically. To address this challenge, we present AgentForge, an immersive learning system in which novices take on one of four software-engineering roles: Task Planner, Patch Author, Code Reviewer, or Test Runner, within a multi-agent code-repair workflow. In each practice session, the novices perform their chosen role while AI agents perform the remaining three. Through role-based scaffolding and metacognitive support, AgentForge clarifies role-specific responsibilities, makes agent coordination and intermediate artifacts visible, and encourages novices to monitor and evaluate their decisions. In a study with 37 novice developers, participants achieved high task-completion rates with AI-agent support. However, interaction demands differed significantly across practices: the Code Reviewer practice required more interaction turns, reroutes, and completion time ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} = .004$) and was perceived as the most challenging. Participants nevertheless reported significant gains in their understanding of software repair and agent collaboration ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} < .001$). These findings suggest that AgentForge can help novices develop practical software-engineering skills while learning to collaborate with agentic AI more critically and effectively.

AI is changing how software engineers work, but it often comes with hidden burdens and costs. In this paper, we characterize two such often-overlooked burdens: (1) the constant need for human oversight and inspection of AI-generated artifacts; and (2) the growing cognitive overload on software engineers from receiving large amounts of suggestions from AI tools. The need for human oversight is not optional-engineers must review, validate, and sometimes rework what AI produces. At the same time, the flood of AI suggestions, prompts, and possible solutions can leave developers mentally stretched. By blending evidence from recent opinions from practitioners, we highlight these often-overlooked challenges and open a conversation about how teams can handle them in day-to-day AI-assisted software engineering.

AI coding agents are rapidly reshaping how software is built, with developers increasingly delegating substantial coding tasks to autonomous agents in pursuit of higher productivity. While these gains are real, they come at the cost of incidental learning. Developers historically acquired informal knowledge through effortful problem-solving, and this has long shaped how software engineering expertise develops. However, with over-reliance on agentic coding, unpracticed skills could atrophy silently over time. As this learning pathway is short-circuited, developers risk silently accruing Knowledge Debt, a developer-level analogue of Technical Debt, where changes the agent executes that the developer cannot fully understand accrue over time. In this paper, we argue that incidental learning will not re-emerge on its own and must be consciously designed back into developer-agent interactions, and propose six design principles to guide such systems. We then present "SHIELD", a multi-agent system grounded in the notion of "agents that teach", that operationalizes these principles by leveraging the AI coding agent's own reasoning to surface contextual, out-of-band learning moments without disrupting developer flow. Through this work, we envision a path toward learning-aware development environments where productivity and learning are complementary, not competing.