Beyond Human-Readable: Rethinking Software Engineering Conventions for the Agentic Development Era

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering, including agentic systems that coordinate multiple agents, but impose higher computational and environmental costs. In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical study of agentic LLM systems across five software engineering tasks: code generation, technical debt identification, code vulnerability detection, log parsing, and log analysis. For each task, we compare LLM configurations that range from a non-agentic single-query baseline to multi-agent workflows, using six open-weight LLMs, two prompt strategies, and three hardware platforms. We assess each configuration in terms of accuracy, inference latency, and energy consumption. Our results reveal substantial trade-offs between agentic complexity and energy efficiency: multi-agent designs consume on average 6.36$\times$ as much energy and run 6.07$\times$ as long as the non-agentic baseline, with worst-case slowdowns of up to 160$\times$ for individual task--hardware pairs. Accuracy gains from additional agents are limited and task-specific: multi-agent improves average vulnerability-detection accuracy, but lightweight non-agentic and single-agent configurations still dominate the Pareto front, accounting for 59 of 66 Pareto-optimal configurations. Model and prompt choice act as task-specific levers whose effective direction varies between tasks rather than as global defaults. We translate these findings into design guidelines for sustainable, task-aware LLM-based development tools.

As autonomous coding agents become deeply embedded in software development workflows, their high operational velocity introduces a critical oversight challenge: the accumulating divergence between agentic actions and architectural intent. We term this process agentic entropy: a systemic drift that traditional code diff-based and HCXAI methods fail to capture, as they address local outputs rather than global agentic behaviour. To close this gap, we propose a process-oriented explainability framework that exposes how agentic decisions unfold across time, tool calls, and architectural boundaries. Built around three pillars (conformity seeding, reasoning monitoring, and a causal graph interface) our approach provides intent-level telemetry that complements, rather than replaces, existing review practices. We demonstrate its relevance across two user profiles: lay users engaged in vibe coding, who gain structural visibility otherwise masked by functional success; and professional developers, who gain richer contextual grounding for code review without increased overhead. By treating cognitive drift as a first-class concern alongside code quality, our framework supports the minimum level of human comprehension required for agentic oversight to remain substantive.

For over half a century, software engineering has operated on a foundational premise: human engineers decompose problems, encode decision logic into static code, and manually adapt that code as requirements evolve. This paper argues that the emergence of AI agents -- systems where large language models serve as the primary reasoning engine, dynamically generating and discarding code as an instrumental resource -- constitutes a fundamental restructuring of what software is, not an incremental tool improvement. We formalize the distinction between traditional deterministic software and agentic software: in the former, code is the carrier of pre-written decision logic; in the latter, the agent itself is the software, and its decision logic is generated at runtime. We trace the historical arc from licensed software to SaaS to Agent-as-a-Service (AaaS), showing that each shift transferred additional complexity away from end-users -- with the agentic shift transferring not just operational complexity but decision-making complexity itself. We introduce Agentic Engineering as an expansion of the software engineering discipline into a new paradigm, distinct in its core object of study (agent systems rather than static source code), its control model (LLM-driven rather than human-predefined), and its human role (intent architect rather than code author). Through analysis of recent benchmark evidence including SWE-bench Verified, EvoClaw, and LangChain's multi-agent coordination studies, we demonstrate both the transformative potential of the agentic paradigm and its current limitations. We conclude with a four-stage roadmap toward self-evolving agent ecosystems and concrete recommendations for practitioners navigating this transition.