cs.SEJun 3, 2026

From Prompt to Process: a Process Taxonomy and Comparative Assessment of Frameworks Supporting AI Software Development Agents

Authors: Sanderson Oliveira de Macedo

Organizations: Federal Institute of Goias

Abstract

AI tools for programming are no longer just autocomplete or chat assistants: they organize themselves as development frameworks, with process, roles, artifacts and verification. Recent surveys map agents and LLMs for software engineering, but a study centered on the operational frameworks that turn these capabilities into process is missing. We ran a directed search of primary sources, with a functional inclusion criterion and traction measurement, and selected six frameworks: GitHub Spec Kit, OpenSpec, BMAD Method, Get Shit Done (GSD), Spec Kitty and Reversa. Each attacks AI development through a different path: spec-driven development in full and lightweight variants, agent-driven agile planning, context engineering over the agent, worktree isolation and review, and recovery of operational specifications from legacy systems. Our central contribution is a six-dimension process taxonomy: specification, context, roles, execution, validation and portability, with a scoring rubric that turns it into a replicable instrument. We apply it to the six frameworks and an out-of-sample case, Spec-Flow. Two results stand out. Among frameworks that already adopt some process there is convergence: the isolated prompt loses centrality, and persistent artifacts, work contracts, traceability and human review become mechanisms that reduce ambiguity and coordinate agents. And no framework strongly covers all six dimensions, exposing a structural trade-off between process depth and portability across agents. We also found recurring risks: drift between specification and code, excessive trust in generated artifacts, fragility of community extensions, platform dependence and a lack of benchmarks for the complete process. We close with a research agenda for empirical evaluation, focused on intermediate-quality metrics, context governance, installation security and reproducibility.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 24, 2026cs.AI

Specifying AI-SDLC Processes: A Protocol Language for Human-Agent Boundaries

AI agents now participate as first-class team members across the software development lifecycle, yet no specification language exists for expressing the human-agent responsibility boundaries, approval gates, and governance constraints this collaboration requires. Existing approaches encode process in agent prompts (subject to drift), target adjacent domains (workflow management, business processes), or address only fragments (access control, approval gates). We propose a domain-specific language for specifying AI-SDLC processes as protocols, with formal syntax, well-formedness conditions, operational semantics, and enforcement invariants. The language distinguishes policy (declared intent) from mechanism (structural enforcement), enabling implementations to bound process non-determinism through primitives such as validation tokens and capability boundaries. Three results follow. A failure rate analysis shows that structural enforcement bounds system failure rates at a weighted product of agent and validator rates, while behavioral compliance permits cumulative or near-saturating growth. The 2+N team pattern (two human-in-control roles plus N specialized agent members) formalizes classical Separation of Duties for AI-SDLC. Kleene closure of orchestration loops and reflexive protocol-adherence validation emerge as design properties rather than special-case constructs. We position the contribution against multi-agent frameworks (MetaGPT), workflow specification (FlowAgent, BPMN extensions), and capability-based security (SAGA): the novelty lies in the specific integration, not any single primitive. A working implementation demonstrates feasibility; empirical evaluation is future work.
Ylli Prifti
Workflow Automation and OptimizationDomain-Specific LanguageIndic Languages
AskPDF
Jun 25, 2026cs.SE

The Spec Growth Engine: Spec-Anchored, Code-Coupled, Drift-Enforced Architecture for AI-Assisted Software Development

AI coding agents dramatically accelerate implementation speed but introduce two structural failure modes that existing spec-driven approaches do not fully solve: (1) context explosion -- the agent must reason over an entire repository at once, degrading output quality as the context window fills; and (2) silent spec-code drift -- code evolves, the specification does not, and the divergence becomes invisible until it is costly to repair. We present the Spec Growth Engine, a lightweight framework that addresses both failure modes through a machine-readable spec graph whose nodes carry explicit contract/design separation, a Spine context assembler that scopes agent context to an ownership path, a vertical-slice growth protocol that enforces hardest-first ordering, and a drift gate that makes spec-code divergence a blocking merge condition. The design synthesises well-established software engineering principles (Parnas information hiding, C4, ADRs, Walking Skeleton, Reflexion Models, Fitness Functions) into a lean, code-coupled, machine-enforced whole -- without the overhead of heavy-weight frameworks such as RUP or MDA.
Hartwig Grabowski
Software EngineeringCoding AgentsSpecificationAi-NativeSoftwareGrowth+2
AskPDF
Aug 25, 2026cs.SE

SpecMine: A Large-Scale Corpus of Spec-Driven Development Artifacts

Spec-Driven Development (SDD) is a fast-emerging practice in which a structured natural-language specification, written by a developer, or (more often) drafted by an AI tool and then curated by the developer, drives an AI coding agent's implementation. A wave of tooling (GitHub Spec Kit [3], OpenSpec [4], AWS Kiro [5], and dozens of others) has appeared since 2025, yet the artifacts these tools produce have never been studied at scale. We present SpecMine, a corpus that captures SDD in public GitHub repositories through two censuses: a broad census of spec.md/specs.md files covering most tools (470,795 files across 73,030 repositories, attributed to 17 named tools), and a Kiro census of its distinct requirements/design/tasks layout (98,574 files across 12,910 repositories). Each spec is enriched with full repository metadata, complete commit history, and parsed document structure. How a spec becomes code is itself an open question, so for 11 tools we sweep every pull request that touches a spec in their repositories with at least ten stars, capturing 5,992 such PRs across 581 repositories with their changesets. That makes the simplest workflow, spec and implementation changing together in one PR, directly observable, and a census-wide index of 2,421,323 typed references (1.28M to code files, 863k to sibling documents, 152k to PRs, 62k refs, 43k branches, 22k issues) gives a second, independent link from spec to code. SpecMine lets the community study, for the first time, how software is specified in the age of AI agents.
Shyam Agarwal, Anmol Singhal, Travis Breaux +1
RepositorySpecificationAi-NativeCorpusMetadataNatural Language
AskPDF