cs.SEApr 10, 2026

The AI Codebase Maturity Model: From Assisted Coding to Fully Autonomous Systems

Authors: Andy Anderson

Organizations: IBM Research — Hybrid Cloud and AI Platform

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

AI coding tools are widely adopted, but most teams plateau at prompt-and-review without a framework for systematic progression. This paper presents the AI Codebase Maturity Model (ACMM), a 6-level framework describing how codebases evolve from basic AI-assisted coding to fully autonomous systems. Inspired by CMMI, each level is defined by its feedback loop topology - the specific mechanisms that must exist before the next level becomes possible. I validate the model through a 100-day experience report maintaining KubeStellar Console, a CNCF Kubernetes dashboard built from scratch with Claude Code (Opus) and GitHub Copilot, and through the initial production deployment of Hive - an open-source multi-agent orchestration system that realizes Level 6: full autonomy. The system currently operates with 74 CI/CD workflows, 32 nightly test suites, 91% code coverage, and achieves bug-to-fix times under 30 minutes - 24 hours a day. The central finding: the intelligence of an AI-driven development system resides not in the AI model itself, but in the infrastructure of instructions, tests, metrics, and feedback loops that surround it. You cannot skip levels, and at each level, the thing that unlocks the next one is another feedback mechanism. Testing - the volume of test cases, the coverage thresholds, and the reliability of test execution - proved to be the single most important investment in the entire journey. v2 extends the model from 5 to 6 levels, adding Level 6 (Fully Autonomous) with Hive as reference implementation and Beads for cross-agent memory continuity, plus throughput acceleration data showing 5x PR throughput and 37x issue throughput from Level 2 to Level 6.

More in this topic

AI-Assisted Software Development

AI-assisted software development uses language models and coding agents to help people design, write, test, review, and maintain software.

See all 106 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 26, 2026

A Few Pages of Markdown: Committed AI Configuration and Lower Quality Cost after Coding-Agent Adoption

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

Yegor Denisov-Blanch, Shyam Agarwal, Pavel Azaletskiy +5

Stanford University Stanford, USA · Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, USA · Grid Dynamics Cleveland, USA

Software EngineeringAI Coding AgentsAI-Assisted Software Development
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

Scaling Human-AI Coding Collaboration Requires a Governable Consensus Layer

Vibe coding turns natural-language intent into working software, but code generation alone does not give humans and agents a shared account of what they are building. As collaboration spans participants, components, and releases, design choices must remain understandable and open to revision. We argue that scaling human and AI coding collaboration requires a governable consensus layer. Agentic Consensus organizes collaboration around a versioned project-state model linking selected intent, structural commitments, executable artifacts, and evidence. Participants can clarify intent before implementation and coordinate proposed changes against commitments that humans can inspect and revise. Bidirectional synchronization connects intended changes to implementation and exposes conflicts or stale evidence as artifacts evolve. We implemented its review workflow in Consensus Control. In a small exploratory human study, 10 participants used the system on projects from their everyday work and reported clearer, faster understanding of agent-submitted changes. A three-condition comparison with the same participants collected 60 responses, with near-ceiling decision scores and measured representation and pipeline costs. Our research agenda asks how shared project state can preserve human understanding and control as agent contributions accumulate.

Tianfu Wang, Zhezheng Hao, Yin Wu +7

HKUST (GZ) Guangzhou, China · ZJU Hangzhou, China · USTC Hefei, China +1

AI Agent BenchmarksAI Agent GovernanceKnowledge GraphsHuman-AI Collaboration
AskPDF
Jul 6, 2026

Three-Phase Evaluation of AI-Assisted Software Development Life Cycle

This paper presents an exploratory evaluation of how increasing levels of AI autonomy affect software development productivity, requirement adherence, and developer cognitive workload. A team of four developers reimplemented the same full-stack web application across three sequential phases: partial AI-assisted development using GitHub Copilot, an AI-exclusive workflow using GitHub Copilot, and an AI-exclusive workflow using AWS Kiro. Evaluation metrics included development effort (hours), requirement adherence (RITM score), AI-interaction efficiency, and NASA-TLX workload measures. Across phases, higher levels of AI autonomy were associated with reduced development effort, improved requirement adherence, and lower self-reported mental workload, while developer frustration increased modestly. The AWS Kiro phase achieved the strongest overall performance on most measured dimensions, suggesting that tooling architecture may influence outcomes independently of AI autonomy level.

Joshua Strubel, Professor Carrie Russell, Carson Crockett +4

Dr. Joshua Strübel, Professor Carrie Russell, Carson Crockett, Jason Ferraro, Nathan Londhe, Uzayr Syed, and Jacob Viehe

Human-AI CollaborationAI-Assisted Software Development
AskPDF