Can an LLM Detect Instances of Microservice Infrastructure Patterns?

Microservice architectures have become dominant for modernizing monolithic systems, yet identifying appropriate services remains challenging and largely manual. Existing decomposition approaches are predominantly code-centric, limiting applicability in early design stages where only textual requirements are available. Despite advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), limited empirical evidence exists on their ability to synthesize complete microservice architectures from natural-language requirements, including service definitions and inter-service interactions. This study investigates whether an LLM can bridge requirements engineering and architectural design, generating architectures solely from textual requirements and evaluating structural agreement and perceived quality of results. We conduct a mixed-method study using OpenAI o3 under zero-shot (ZS) and few-shot (FS) prompting across two systems (Bookstore, PetClinic), one execution per system/condition. Architectures are evaluated through (i) comparison with reference architectures using precision, recall, and F1-score for service identification and communication recovery, and (ii) a blinded expert assessment of correctness, completeness, modularity, and plausibility, plus open feedback synthesis. OpenAI o3 identifies services with higher agreement under FS prompting (F1 = 0.79 for ZS versus = 0.97 for FS). Communication recovery is more challenging: ZS produces dense architectures with high recall but low precision (F1 = 0.61), while FS improves agreement, reaching F1 = 0.82 and reducing unsupported dependencies. Expert evaluation corroborates these results, with FS architectures perceived as more modular, coherent, and plausible than ZS outputs. OpenAI o3 shows potential for requirements-driven synthesis when guided by exemplar prompting. Results are model- and context-specific from two small systems, not model-independent proof.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software systems for diverse purposes, due to their versatility, flexibility, and ability to simulate human reasoning to some extent. However, poor integration of LLM inference in source code can undermine software system quality. Therefore, inadequate LLM integration coding practices must be documented to help developers mitigate such issues. Following our earlier work on LLM code smells, this paper consolidates and refines the concept by presenting a self-contained taxonomy and a catalog of nine LLM code smells. We also create SpecDetect4LLM, a static source code analysis tool for their detection, and conduct extensive empirical evaluations of its detection effectiveness (precision and recall) as well as the prevalence of LLM code smells across 692 open-source software projects (171,194 source files). Our results show that LLM code smells affect 73.5% of the analyzed systems, with a detection precision of 91.3% and a recall of 71.8%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into software systems and AI services, making efficient LLM serving a concern for software engineering. Serving LLMs is challenging because inference requires computation, memory, GPU resources, and execution while maintaining latency and throughput. Although prior research has proposed LLM inference, optimization, and serving techniques and frameworks, little is known about how they are adopted in practice. In this study, we investigate the use of LLM serving frameworks and serving methods in open-source software systems. We identify and analyze five LLM-specific frameworks: vLLM, SGLang, TensorRT-LLM, LMDeploy, and FlashInfer. We examine how these frameworks and techniques are adopted individually and in combination, how adoption varies across categories of LLMs, and how repositories differ in intent, focus, use case, and architectural design. Our results show that vLLM is the most visible framework in popularity and adoption, while parallel computation, memory management, and network pruning are the most frequently used serving-method categories. Multi-framework usage is limited, suggesting that developers rely on a single serving framework; however, combined frameworks connect complementary capabilities across the serving stack. Framework adoption varies across model families, modalities, model sizes, domain specializations, and deployment settings. Repository-level analysis shows that LLM serving frameworks support applications and architectures, including Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based reasoning, multimodal generation and understanding, microservices, and cloud infrastructure. Overall, this study provides a large-scale empirical characterization of LLM serving framework adoption in practice and offers insights for researchers, framework maintainers, and practitioners working on LLM systems.