cs.SEMay 6, 2026

Mise en Place for Agentic Coding: Deliberate Preparation as Context Engineering Methodology

Authors: Andrew Zigler

Organizations: LinearB Los Angeles, USA

Abstract

The rapid adoption of AI coding agents has produced a dominant workflow pattern -- often called "vibe coding" -- that prioritizes speed of implementation over deliberate preparation. We argue that this approach creates a systematic alignment problem: agents that lack sufficient context produce code requiring extensive debugging and refactoring, consuming substantial development time. Drawing on the culinary concept of mise en place (everything in its place; abbreviated MEP), we propose a three-phase preparation methodology for agentic coding: (1) contextual grounding, where domain expertise and tacit knowledge are externalized into structured documents; (2) collaborative specification, where human-agent dialogue produces detailed design artifacts; and (3) task decomposition, where specifications are converted into structured, dependency-aware task records. We report on the application of MEP during a competitive hackathon, where roughly two hours of preparation enabled a rapid parallel implementation of a full-stack educational platform by concurrent AI agents. We introduce the concept of context fluency as an emerging developer skill -- the ability to create rich, structured context that agents can act on -- and connect it to established frameworks in backward design and tacit knowledge externalization. We conclude with a research agenda for empirically validating preparation-phase methodologies in AI-assisted software development.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 28, 2026cs.SE

Do Context Files Help Coding Agents? A Two-Agent Ablation Study on Real Repositories

Persistent context files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) are standard practice for guiding AI coding agents, yet evidence for their effectiveness is contradictory. We present a controlled ablation of context-injection strategy across two frontier agents (Claude Code and Codex), 17 real tasks from 3 repositories (15 shared + 2 Codex-only), and 288 evaluated runs with gold-test evaluation. Context strategy does not measurably move correctness on either agent (bounded to <=10-15pp via equivalence testing). A failure-mode triage reveals why: agents fail on implementation skill---feature design, pattern selection, exact wiring---not missing repository knowledge that a context file could supply; a manipulation probe confirms the real AGENTS.md never converts a near-miss to a pass on either agent. We further show that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents' informative bands. We release all code, data, and analysis.
Prakhar Khatri
Coding AgentsInjectingAblationControlled Study
AskPDF
Feb 12, 2026cs.SE

Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding Agents?

A widespread practice in software development is to tailor coding agents to repositories using context files, such as AGENTS.md. Although this practice is strongly encouraged by agent developers, there is currently no rigorous investigation into whether such context files are actually effective for real-world tasks. In this work, we study this question and evaluate coding agents' task completion performance in two complementary settings: established SWE-bench tasks from popular repositories, with LLM-generated context files, and a novel collection of issues from repositories containing developer-committed context files. Surprisingly, we find that providing context files does not generally improve task success rates, while increasing inference cost by over 20% on average. This observation holds across different LLMs, coding agents, and for both LLM-generated and developer-committed context files. Specifically, we find that while instructions in the context files are well followed by coding agents, repository overviews, although popular and recommended by model providers, are not helpful. We conclude that while context files are useful for specifying non-standard coding practices, any attempts to improve performance should be rigorously evaluated before deployment.
Thibaud Gloaguen, Niels Mündler, Mark Müller +2
Coding AgentsRepositoryInference Cost
AskPDF
May 7, 2026cs.SE

Agentic Coding Needs Proactivity, Not Just Autonomy

Coding agents are rapidly changing the landscape of software development, moving from inline completion to autonomous systems that edit repositories, open pull requests, respond to issues, and run scheduled or webhook triggered routines across the development life cycle. The next generation is increasingly described as proactive and long-horizon: agents should notice relevant changes before the developer asks, connect signals across tools, decide when to interrupt, and carry preferences across sessions. Yet the field still lacks a clear account of what proactivity means for software development, how it differs from autonomy, what acceptance criteria proactive long-horizon tasks should satisfy, and which metrics determine whether unsolicited agent behavior is useful rather than merely active. Proactive coding agents should be evaluated by the quality and improvement of their insight policy: the policy that decides what matters next, what evidence supports it, whether to show it, and how to adapt after feedback. This view is grounded in the principles of mixed initiative interaction. We propose a three level taxonomy of proactivity (Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware), compare contemporary coding agents against five practical criteria, and sketch an active user simulation protocol with three evaluation targets: Insight Decision Quality (IDQ), Context Grounding Score (CGS), and Learning Lift
Nghi D. Q. Bui, Georgios Evangelopoulos
Coding AgentsProactiveAutonomyLong-Horizon Tasks
AskPDF