On AI Safety and Security Technical Debt in Engineering AI-Enabled Systems

The emergence of Agentic AI systems, characterized by autonomous reasoning, multi-agent collaboration, tool orchestration, adaptive decision-making, and persistent memory, represents a fundamental shift from traditional AI pipelines to dynamic software ecosystems. While AI Technical Debt (AITD) has been widely studied in machine learning and software engineering, existing models assume static, component-level architectures and fail to capture the dynamic and emergent behaviors of agentic environments. To address this gap, this paper introduces Agentic Technical Debt (AgTD), defined as technical debt that emerges, accumulates, propagates, and amplifies due to the autonomous and collaborative nature of Agentic AI systems. Building on our prior systematic scoping review of 31 AITDs across seven root-cause categories, we employ a theory-informed transformation methodology to reinterpret these debts in Agentic AI through direct transformation, contextual transformation, and manifestation expansion. We present the first systematic mapping of established AITDs to their agentic manifestations, showing how conventional debts evolve into system-level liabilities, including memory inconsistencies, orchestration fragility, cascading failures, and unsafe autonomous decision-making. Our findings show that technical debt extends beyond software artifacts to encompass agent behaviors, coordination mechanisms, and interactions among agents, tools, and execution environments. We further examine its implications for AI Trust, Risk, and Security Management (AI TRiSM), highlighting impacts on trustworthiness, governance, security, operational resilience, and Sustainability Technical Debt. Overall, this work establishes AgTD as a foundational software engineering construct and provides a transformation framework, taxonomy, and research agenda for managing technical debt in autonomous multi-agent AI systems.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) components are increasingly pervasive in several software systems, including Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs). AI-CPS are used in several domains, including autonomous vehicles, industry, home automation, robotics, and healthcare. Being composed of hardware, AI components, and conventional modules, AI-CPS can exhibit technical debt (TD) that is peculiar and potentially more challenging than that of conventional systems. This thesis aims to characterize AI-CPS TD and propose approaches for its identification and repair. In a first phase, we characterize AI-CPS TD by analyzing AI ecosystems and AI-CPS repositories, as well as interviewing developers. Based on the acquired knowledge, we define approaches to identify and mitigate such TD. Finally, we plan to develop and validate an automated tool that supports agentic AI solutions to monitor, govern, and repay AI-CPS TD.

Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage. These frameworks implicitly assume deterministic behavior, discrete and auditable change events, and clear component-to-owner mappings. Teams that build and operate agentic AI systems violate all three assumptions at once: outputs are probabilistic, systems take autonomous multi-step actions, and the risk surface mutates silently between deployments. Existing AI risk literature addresses this from above (policy frameworks such as the NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001) or below (threat taxonomies such as OWASP's agentic AI guidance), but not at the layer where an engineering manager (EM) operates: roles, decision rights, and escalation structures. This paper contributes (i) a seven-dimension profile distinguishing pure software-engineering, hybrid, and AI-native teams; (ii) a six-cluster failure-mode taxonomy including a previously unarticulated cluster, dependency-boundary determinism mismatch; and (iii) a synthetic framework-adequacy methodology scoring how well each profile's risk architecture detects, contains, and escalates a defined scenario set. Because the object of study is framework adequacy rather than human behavior, the evaluation yields derived rather than observed coverage claims. Coverage degrades as teams move from pure software engineering to AI-native operation, monotonically in the median and abruptly in the count of uncovered, high-consequence failures appearing only at the AI-native step. The degradation concentrates in specific failure-mode categories, and the most severe, least-covered failures arise not inside AI-native teams but at the organizational boundary where their probabilistic outputs are consumed by determinism-assuming dependencies.