AI-Assisted Software Development

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

5 papers in the last four weeks, down 17% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 70

Oct 7, 2026cs.SE

Why Software Engineering Is Indispensable in the Age of Coding Agents

Can AI make Software Engineering (SE) -- the discipline -- obsolete? And can it make software engineers -- the professionals -- redundant? This paper argues that the rise of capable AI coding agents makes SE and software engineers essential, not obsolete: the missing foundation without which AI-assisted development produces misleadingly plausible, unverifiable, and ultimately untrustworthy software. Three structural properties of large language models (probabilistic generation, agnosticism, and semantic statelessness) create a structural vacuum that no amount of training can eliminate. Filling it requires four knowledge levers: methodological knowledge, domain knowledge, design choices, and process choices. All four must be reified as persistent artifacts, and each requires the software engineer as methodologist, mediator, and custodian.

Alfonso Fuggetta

Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Milan, Italy

Software Engineering AI-Assisted Software Development Human-AI Collaboration LLM Agent Reliability Coding Agents

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

Towards an AI Software Factory for Data Systems

AI-assisted coding tools deliver significant acceleration of coding, but only limited impact across the end-to-end software development lifecycle (SDLC)--an Amdahl's law effect! In this paper, we discuss our progress towards building an AI SW Factory that accelerates all the stages of SDLC-Targeting, Coding, Reviewing, and Ops. The AI SW Factory produces a metadata exhaust that enables self-improvement by fine-tuning model weights and updating our World Model (a rich data substrate). We focus on Data Systems and the important class of Evolutionary Coding Tasks (i.e., those with a measurable objective to hill-climb) and report on 1) scaled deployments at Microsoft (tens of repositories) leading to 3x engineering efficiency above agentic coding and up to 22x token efficiency, and 2) several open challenges.

Anna Pavlenko, Bogdan Crivat, Brandon Haynes +23

Microsoft · University of Wisconsin-Madison · GitHub

Automated Software Engineering AI-Assisted Software Development

Sep 24, 2026cs.SE

Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase

We present: (i) a new dataset consisting of the full development history of a 21,000-line Python tool built entirely by Claude AI, with no human-authored code or tests, (ii) two code-provenance tracing tools, (iii) three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability, (iv) application of these to analyse the dataset. We find that: (i) user coding agent CLI instructions differ in kind from IDE-chat instructions, with a greater focus on comprehension, planning and consultation, (ii) code development is mainly proactive, (iii) 14.3% of AI code-generation events contain a real error later caught by the AI-authored test suite, (iv) roughly 1 in 4-5 of the AI's interactive responses contains one or more factual errors.

Douglas Leith

Trinity College Dublin Dublin, Ireland

AI Agent Reliability Data Provenance AI Coding Agents LLM Reliability Code Generation Evaluation AI-Assisted Software Development

Sep 16, 2026cs.SE

A Study of the Reliability of Agentic AI-Generated Programs

Agentic-AI based software development offers the promise of faster completion of the software, greater programmer efficiency, and more reliable code. The question is how can we verify these claims in an objective way? In this project, we attempted to answer this question based on three practices. First, we applied a typical best-practices agentic AI workflow for software development. Second, our target programs were ten well-known, release-quality human-written Linux utility programs so that we could compare the AI-generated code against a concrete ground truth. Third, we based our measure of reliability on a widely used testing technique, fuzz random testing. For this testing, we used both classic black box, generational testing and more modern coverage guided (gray box, mutational) testing using AFL++. We found that the AI-generated versions of the utility programs were typically as reliable - often more reliable - than the latest human-generated versions of these programs. While the AI-generated versions did have some failures, they were less common than the code from the standard repositories. Interestingly, the AI-generated code was less likely to have failures such as memory errors (such as buffer overflows) but more likely to have hangs such as infinite loops. In addition, we verified that generating robust and reliable software using agentic AI requires careful practice and human supervision. The quality of the code is highly dependent on the prompts and skills used, and how the human directing the process responds. We also demonstrated that using agentic AI workflow for software development (with its prompts and skills) can become a specification of the code that leads to cost-effective sustainability of the software.

Ayesha Shafique, Barton P. MIller, Elisa R. Heymann

AI Agent Reliability Agentic Code Generation Code Generation Evaluation AI-Assisted Software Development

Sep 10, 2026cs.SE

The Vibe Shift in Software Engineering: Evaluating AI-Led Conversational Programming for Performance, Cognition, and Responsible Adoption

This study evaluates Vibe Coding, an emerging AI-led conversational programming paradigm that enables developers to generate software through natural-language interaction with large language models. Using a mixed-methods design, the study assessed performance efficiency, cognitive implications, and responsible adoption in comparison with traditional and AI-assisted coding environments. Thirty participants, including professional developers and advanced computing students, completed equivalent programming tasks under three experimental conditions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated-measures ANOVA, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. Results show that vibe coding significantly improved development efficiency, reducing task completion time by 27% compared with traditional coding and 12% compared with AI-assisted coding. However, these gains were accompanied by lower maintainability indices and higher security vulnerabilities, indicating trade-offs in software quality. Usability results yielded a good rating (SUS = 71.4), while cognitive workload remained moderate (NASA-TLX = 55.5), reflecting reduced syntactic effort but increased linguistic reasoning. Thematic analysis identified trust calibration, loss of control, cognitive adaptation, and prompt-engineering strategy as key constructs. Notably, perceived loss of control was associated with increased security risks due to reduced transparency and validation of AI-generated outputs. Based on these findings, the study proposes a three-pillar framework for responsible adoption: hybrid integration of human and AI capabilities, human oversight and transparent accountability, and context-aware deployment. Overall, vibe coding enhances productivity but requires critical oversight, reinforcing its role as a transformative yet transitional paradigm in software development.

Sales G. Aribe Jr., Louie Jay S. Labastida

Information Technology Department, Bukidnon State University, Malaybalay City, Philippines

Code Generation Evaluation Human-AI Collaboration Code Language Models Responsible AI AI-Assisted Software Development

Sep 8, 2026cs.SE

It Is Not My Code Anymore

AI-assisted programming raises distinct questions about who produces code, who feels ownership of it, and who is responsible when it fails. This research note examines these distinctions through a hypothetical enrollment failure and a selective reading of the literature. Identifying the producer of a defective expression does not, by itself, determine the duties of reviewers, release decision-makers, or service operators. Collective ownership likewise leaves those duties to be specified. The discussion then considers how quality engineering can evaluate both generated implementations and the processes that produce them. Acceptance criteria should be justified by the required service outcome, with component checks contributing evidence toward that outcome. This perspective also permits comparison with systems that perform a task without generating a separate program for it. Such substitution would change the object of authorship while leaving the service obligation intact. The note reports no new empirical results; it proposes distinctions and evaluation questions for AI-assisted software production.

Augusto Camargo

Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (IME) University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Algorithmic Accountability Code Generation Evaluation Human Oversight of AI AI-Assisted Software Development

Sep 3, 2026cs.SE

The Psychological Costs of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Software Engineering

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to augment software engineering (SE) workflows. While code generation remains the main use case, organizations are actively seeking AI integration in other practices such as test cases generation and code reviews. Organizational AI adoption strategies seem to focus on tangible outcomes such as productivity. However, AI is a disruptive force, introduced into settings where role identity, team norms, and the sources of job satisfaction were well established before the recent advances in generative AI. Historically, technological disruptions have caused psychological and social strains in workplaces, ranging from anxiety and eroded meaning to deskilling and disrupted professional identities. The assumption that AI for SE is cost-free may not be accurate. Therefore, in this study we sought to understand the psychological costs software professionals experience during organizational AI adoption. We carried out a case study in a large software development services company, one year after the company launched its AI adoption. We collected qualitative data through meetings and semi-structured interviews (N = 21). We found that software professionals experience accountability anxiety, craft identity disruption, meaning and satisfaction erosion, cognitive and workload intensification, and uncertainty distress. Practitioners manage these costs through practices that restore control, mitigate them through protective and identity-preserving adaptations, or absorb them, carrying what neither can resolve. We contribute to AI-human collaboration in SE by repositioning AI adoption as a human transition, not only a technological and organizational one.

Adam Alami, Elda Paja, Abhishek Tiwari

University of Southern Denmark, The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, 6400, Sønderborg, Denmark · IT University of Copenhagen, Rued Langgaards Vej 7, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark · University of Southern Denmark, The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, Odense, Denmark

Software Engineering Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Aug 31, 2026cs.SE

On the Prospects of Dynamic LLM Conversations in Software Development

Large language models (LLMs) have become an essential tool for assisting developers, yet we still lack knowledge on ways to effectively support their interactions during development activities. That is, the quality of interactions with a chat-based LLM still strongly depends on how developers phrase prompts and which information they include. Our goal is to evaluate whether interventions into these interactions with LLMs have an effect on software developers---be it harmful or beneficial. To this end, we conducted a four-month longitudinal study with third-semester computer science students working on a full-stack Web development project using chat-based LLMs under three conditions: (1) a \emph{context}-aware group received intent-based conversation augmentation, (2) a \emph{proactive} group received follow-up suggestions and tailored advice, and (3) a \emph{control} group without intervention. Our augmentations are minimal: (i) to reduce confounding factors and (ii) to isolate treatment effects. Analyzing interaction logs and user surveys revealed no major differences in interaction patterns, indicating no detectable harmful effects in the measured outcomes when intervening in interactions. Moreover, we observed trends of increased satisfaction with the \emph{proactive} treatment. The results indicate that even with minimal interventions, dynamic guidance mechanisms for developer-LLM interactions show observable effects, such that more severe augmentations may have the potential to substantially improve developer satisfaction.

Annemarie Wittig, Alina Mailach, Janet Siegmund +1

Leipzig, Leipzig University, Leipzig, 04109, Germany · Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, 09107, Germany · ScaDS.AI Dresden/Leipzig, Leipzig University, Leipzig, 04109, Germany

LLM Prompting Human-AI Interaction AI-Assisted Software Development

Aug 30, 2026cs.CL

VibeJam: A User Study Platform for Web Development with Agents

Programming with AI is increasingly agentic, users prompt LLMs to directly edit their code and review the changes, with adoption growing especially for web development tasks. Despite this growth, most NLP work uses offline evaluation and lacks support for online studies, losing insights into how programmers truly use coding agents. We release VibeJam, a browser-based user study platform for users to collaborate with AI agents to develop websites. VibeJam enables agent customization and uses the open-source Aider agent by default, and to mirror downstream use, we add diff review, chat and plan modes, and live website previews. In a pilot study with 55 released, game-based website creation tasks, five experienced AI programmers rate our system as fun, simple, and resembling commercial tools, while 13 junior students use VibeJam to make websites of higher quality than agents in the same task. We open-source VibeJam to spur extensions and support studies on how coding agents can help users.

Nishant Balepur, Connor Baumler, Valerie Chen +3

University of Maryland · New York University · Carnegie Mellon University +1

AI Coding Agents Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Aug 26, 2026cs.SE

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 Engineering AI Coding Agents AI-Assisted Software Development

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

Carnegie Mellon University

Software Engineering Software Engineering Agents AI-Assisted Software Development

Aug 10, 2026cs.SE

Comprendia: AI-Augmented Code Comprehension

Comprendia is an Eclipse plugin that integrates structural dependency visualization with LLM-powered code explanation on a shared interactive graph for Java program comprehension. The tool rests on four pillars: (1) a multi-edge-type dependency graph with live search and multiple layouts; (2) LLM explanations grounded in Graph-Aware Callee Pruning (GACP), an auditable strategy that selects relevant callees using the same graph the developer navigates; (3) a clone-detection overlay that highlights duplication and suggests extract-to-parent refactoring opportunities; and (4) a CVE risk overlay powered by OSV.dev. GACP uses graph distance, inheritance collapse, and edge-type weighting to produce prompts that are reproducible across LLM families and traceable to visible graph nodes. We demonstrate Comprendia on a Java project containing known clones and vulnerabilities, showing how the unified graph substrate supports comprehension while keeping the developer in control. Screencast: https://youtu.be/1wlh_RYehzA

Costain Nachuma, Minhaz F. Zibran

Department of Computer Science Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho, USA

Static Code Analysis AI-Assisted Software Development

Aug 7, 2026cs.SE

Towards Assurance Closure in AI-Native Large-Scale Agile Software Development

The AI-Native Manifesto envisions large-scale agile software development in which humans increasingly govern intent, risk, and exceptions while agents execute more of the engineering process. Realizing that end-state requires more than better code generation: it requires assurance closure, meaning that the system can establish what must be true, determine and obtain appropriate evidence, judge the credibility of that evidence, preserve its validity through change, and use the resulting uncertainty to bound agent authority. Existing work already provides many of the necessary mechanisms across formal methods, testing, simulation, assurance cases, digital twins, and runtime assurance. We identify six residual gaps in making the surrounding assurance reasoning sufficiently machine-operable, propose a high-level architecture with six corresponding capabilities built on a shared semantic assurance layer, and formulate four research questions to turn that architecture into dependable, human-on-the-loop, AI-native R&D.

Ricardo Britto

Ericsson, Sweden · Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden

AI Assurance Software Engineering Agents Human Oversight of AI AI-Assisted Software Development

Aug 6, 2026cs.SE

Characterizing the Quality Profile of AI-Generated C++ in Production

The widespread integration of AI coding assistants offers undeniable boosts to engineering velocity. Yet, recent studies point to a growing trade-off, revealing persistent challenges with code quality and maintainability. Industry leaders, including frontier AI labs, echo these concerns. As large language models are increasingly relied upon to author production code, understanding their impact on shipped software quality has become a critical priority. However, assessing these effects in industrial workflows remains difficult due to observability barriers. We study the impact of AI-generated code on production quality within a large enterprise operating global products relied upon by billions of users daily. Driven by this scale and user trust, the organization values code quality and has built thorough observability for every line of code deployed into production, enabling us to overcome measurement barriers to assess these effects. This study presents a large-scale empirical analysis of AI-generated C++ code from April 2025 to April 2026, tracking 3.52 million code changes across this enterprise's brownfield codebase. The core purpose is to understand the quality, performance, and maintenance characteristics of AI-generated code compared to human-written code in a production environment at scale. We find that AI-generated C++ code has a distinct quality profile, showing higher rates of interface and coupling burdens, copy and allocation overheads, and a reliance on explicit loops over optimized standard APIs. These issues translate into tangible downstream costs, including increased review effort and a 5-8% increase in compute resource consumption. However, we demonstrate that providing models with targeted, taxonomy-informed feedback can mitigate these effects, leading to an 11.1% reduction in targeted static analysis warnings and improved computational efficiency.

Michael Tran, Fred Lewis, Kun Yang +5

Google, Mountain View, USA

Code Generation Code Generation Evaluation AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 31, 2026cs.SE

From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale

AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggestions such as style and best practices while under-indexing on the concerns human reviewers prioritize most: correctness, security, and performance. We present ARCTIC, an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, which infers why a change was made from conversation logs and metadata; drift detection, which measures divergence between the developer's intent and the agent's output via backtranslation; and code spotlight, which ranks the regions of a diff most warranting human scrutiny. We ground these capabilities in a six-theme taxonomy derived from 18,000 code reviews. Offline evaluation shows that intent prediction achieves 0.86 F1, drift detection reaches near-perfect ordinal agreement with human annotators (QWK = 0.907), and spotlight outperforms the baseline AI reviewer by 2.4x on quality estimation at 5x fewer tokens. In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.

Chandra Maddila, Mashrur Rashik, Euna Mehnaz Khan +4

Meta, USA · †Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Automated Code Review AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 29, 2026cs.AI

Fewer Clarifications, Better Code: Benchmarking Cross-Session Personalized Ambiguity Adaptation in Coding Assistants

AI-assisted coding increasingly translates informal user intent into executable software, yet coding requests often contain ambiguities that recur in user-specific ways across tasks and sessions. Existing disambiguation methods typically address each ambiguous request in isolation within the current coding session, often through eliciting additional clarification. However, whether resolved session history from the same user can serve as memory for resolving recurring personalized ambiguity in a newly opened session remains underexplored. We formulate personalized ambiguity adaptation as a new task: given a user's previously resolved coding sessions and a new ambiguous request, an assistant should identify the recurring ambiguity pattern, produce the intended executable solution, and minimize clarification. To benchmark this task, we introduce CAPA, which characterizes personalized coding ambiguity through six mechanisms and injects these mechanisms into unambiguous executable tasks using a controlled three-stage generation pipeline. CAPA contains 600 coding sessions across 60 balanced user--ambiguity cells, including 300 held-out evaluation sessions. We evaluate 12 recent LLMs under no-history and same-user-history conditions using executable success, first-turn success, and turns-to-completion. Our analyses examine task difficulty, user identity, and memory-based history use, and we further propose same-user history gating as a lightweight inference-time method. CAPA provides a foundation for developing long-term coding assistants that better align generated code with user intent while reducing repeated clarification.

Zijian Xu, Wenshuo Zhang, Zisen Qin +4

Southeast University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Knowledge Augmentation for Language Models Code Generation Code Generation Benchmarks AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 29, 2026cs.CL

(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding

Coding agents (e.g., Cursor) improve developer productivity by optimizing task completion, but shifting users from writing code to prompting and reviewing may harm their understanding, impeding oversight, learning, and communication. To probe this, we have 54 students create a website with one of two AI systems: an agent that edits user code; or a chatbot where users write code alone or adapt generic code snippets. We test understanding via comprehension questions and a task where users extend their code without agents, showing: (1) While agents aid initial task completion, they harm users' code comprehension and thus do not prepare users to extend their code; (2) Low-effort agent interaction types, like copy+paste prompts and auto-accepted edits, are linked with lower comprehension; and (3) Despite self-reported weaker understanding, users still prefer coding agents because they are quick and easy to use. While users stay in the loop for coding workflows, understanding should not be forgotten. Towards this goal, we distill our analyses into future research directions for coding agent developers: dissuading low-effort prompting, creating readable code, and promoting active engagement.

Nishant Balepur, Connor Baumler, Valerie Chen +3

University of Maryland · New York University · Carnegie Mellon University

Coding Agents Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 27, 2026cs.SE

Learning from 53.6K Real-World Developer Edits of AI-Generated Code

Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant. Manual code edits provide more realistic and granular information on editing behavior than Git commits, which only contain final successful code snippets. Yet, due to a lack of high-quality, realistic code editing data, LLMs are mostly trained on publicly available Git data (e.g., commits). To address this gap, we introduce DECODE (Developer Edits of Code Dataset), a dataset of 53.6K real-world in-IDE code edits of AI-generated code in Python, TypeScript, and JavaScript, sourced from 1K+ developers. First, we demonstrate the utility of DECODE for data analysis, obtaining insights on when, why, and how AI-generated code is edited. We find that most edits occur within the first 15 minutes after accepting an AI completion, resulting in the removal of AI completions in 31% of edit trajectories. Second, we use DECODE to benchmark the ability of LLMs to predict code edits. We find that finetuning on DECODE enables open-source 3B models to perform code edit prediction tasks significantly better than frontier LLMs. We then discuss implications of this work, emphasizing the necessity of developer-centric machine learning approaches for future AI programming assistants.

Jenny T. Liang, Mihika Bairathi, Wayne Chi +3

Carnegie Mellon University

Code Generation Evaluation Code Language Models AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 24, 2026cs.AI

How Well Can AI Generate Backlogs from App Mockups?

Creating sprint backlogs requires considerable effort, as items such as epics, user stories, and tasks can be missed or inconsistently specified. We propose a multimodal approach to support backlog generation from visual app mockups, an artifact available at early project stages. We evaluate three prompting strategies on GPT-4o: a zero-shot baseline, Compositional Chain-of-Thought (CCoT) for vision-language reasoning, and a persona-driven prompt. We study seven app development projects across two countries and interview developers about the results. Overall, we observed that the baseline prompt favours recall over precision, whereas CCoT is more balanced, achieving average F1 scores of 52-66% for epics and user stories. Tasks were more challenging to generate accurately. Precision gains were most consistent when adding architectural context, particularly for backend tasks (precision gains up to 35%). Interviews with developers revealed that up to 26% of false positives were still considered useful, reflecting the creative and open-ended nature of backlog creation. To capture this, we propose a new measure called Revised Recall, which complements ground-truth evaluation with developer assessments. Our findings suggest that hybrid prompting with architectural context can assist backlog generation from early mockups, though results vary by item type and developer oversight remains necessary.

Andrea Lezcano Airaldi, Lourdes Romera, Walid Maalej

Department of Informatics · Hasso Plattner Institute

Requirements Engineering Prompt Engineering Text Generation Generative AI Evaluation AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 24, 2026cs.AI

AI4PLE: A Methodology for Integrating AI into Product Line Engineering

Reuse-based development has become increasingly important in the creation of complex systems, offering significant opportunities to reduce costs, improve quality, and accelerate time-to-market. Product Line Engineering (PLE) provides a systematic approach to realizing this potential by enabling the efficient creation, management, and customization of product families by reusing shared assets and capabilities. PLE involves addressing numerous complex decisions, including feature selection, variability management, and configuration optimization, which are critical to the success of a product line. Despite its promise, the systematic integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into PLE processes has not yet been comprehensively explored. In this paper, we propose a methodological framework to support the systematic integration of AI into PLE and evaluate its effectiveness through a multi-case study conducted in an industrial context.

Bedir Tekinerdogan

Information Technology, Wageningen University & Research Wageningen, The Netherlands

Software Engineering Automated Software Engineering AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 23, 2026cs.SE

How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests

Recent advances in large language models and their rapid adoption across software engineering tasks have made Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding agents an integral component of modern software development workflows. While developers increasingly benefit from these coding agents, their impact on software quality remains insufficiently understood. In particular, how agentic contributions evolve across the software development lifecycle has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to characterize agentic pull requests (PR) in comparison to human generated PRs and to examine how their properties change across different stages of the development lifecycle. Using the AIDev dataset, we first analyze how differences in merge rates between agentic and human generated PRs vary over time. We then identify the types of development tasks where AI coding agents are predominantly applied and investigate how these task distributions evolve across development quarters. Finally, we compare a set of key characteristics of agentic and human generated PRs, focusing on their implications for software quality and their temporal dynamics. Overall, our findings provide an empirical and longitudinal perspective on the role of AI coding agents in software development, offering a more nuanced understanding of their benefits and limitations in real-world practices.

Iren Mazloomzadeh, Mohammad Mehdi Morovati, Foutse Khomh

Polytechnique Montréal, Canada

Software Engineering Agents AI Coding Agents Code Generation Evaluation AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 13, 2026cs.SE

Understanding the Impact of AI Code Assistants on Security API Usage: An Empirical Study

AI code assistants are transforming software development, but their implications for software security remain a major concern, particularly in the context of security APIs. These APIs are critical for safeguarding software systems, yet their complexity often leads to incorrect use and serious vulnerabilities. Developing an evidence-based understanding of how AI assistants influence developers' use of these APIs is therefore essential for informing effective mitigation strategies. While a few user studies have examined the broader impact of AI assistants on software vulnerabilities, the use of security APIs remains unexplored from a developer-centered perspective. This study addresses this gap by presenting the first empirical investigation into how AI code assistants affect professional developers' use of security APIs. We conducted a study with 44 developers who completed security API programming tasks with and without GitHub Copilot assistance. Our findings show that, while Copilot improves functional correctness and marginally reduces certain insecure patterns, it does not significantly improve secure API usage. We also found that developers rarely raised security concerns when engaging with Copilot, and many did not recognize that their final implementations remained insecure. Finally, we offer recommendations for enhancing security awareness among developers and propose future research directions to support safer AI-assisted software development.

Zahra Mousavi, Chadni Islam, M. Ali Babar +2

Centre for Research on Engineering Software Technologies (CREST) & Adelaide University, Australia · 2Edith Cowan University, Australia · 3CSIRO’s Data61, Australia

AI Coding Agents Software Security AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 10, 2026cs.SE

Git-Assistant: Planning-Based Support for Updating Git Repositories

Version control systems are essential for collaborative software development, yet tools like git remain challenging for many practitioners. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for interpreting developer intent, but their effectiveness in repository management tasks is limited by the need for formal reasoning. This work introduces Git-Assistant, an AI-based assistant that combines LLMs with automated planning to support developers in executing non-trivial git operations. The assistant analyzes repository context, translates natural language requests into actionable command sequences, and incorporates planning techniques to ensure correctness and safety. We present a systematic evaluation methodology using synthetic and randomized git environments, comparing the performance of LLM-only and planning-augmented variants across multiple metrics. Experimental results demonstrate that integrating formal reasoning with LLMs improves reliability and reduces errors in repository management, highlighting the potential of hybrid AI approaches for intelligent developer assistance.

Alfredo Garrachón Ruiz, Tomás de la Rosa, Daniel Borrajo

AI Research, JPMorganChase

AI Coding Agents LLM Tool Use AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 7, 2026cs.SE

Agents That Teach: Towards Designing Incidental Learning Back into AI-Assisted Software Development

AI coding agents are rapidly reshaping how software is built, with developers increasingly delegating substantial coding tasks to autonomous agents in pursuit of higher productivity. While these gains are real, they come at the cost of incidental learning. Developers historically acquired informal knowledge through effortful problem-solving, and this has long shaped how software engineering expertise develops. However, with over-reliance on agentic coding, unpracticed skills could atrophy silently over time. As this learning pathway is short-circuited, developers risk silently accruing Knowledge Debt, a developer-level analogue of Technical Debt, where changes the agent executes that the developer cannot fully understand accrue over time. In this paper, we argue that incidental learning will not re-emerge on its own and must be consciously designed back into developer-agent interactions, and propose six design principles to guide such systems. We then present "SHIELD", a multi-agent system grounded in the notion of "agents that teach", that operationalizes these principles by leveraging the AI coding agent's own reasoning to surface contextual, out-of-band learning moments without disrupting developer flow. Through this work, we envision a path toward learning-aware development environments where productivity and learning are complementary, not competing.

Rohit Mehra, Samdyuti Suri, Prithviraj K Tagadinamani +3

Accenture Labs, India · Accenture, USA

Coding Agents Multi-Agent Coding AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 7, 2026cs.SE

Prompt Coach: An Empirical Evaluation of an Agentic Tutor for Learning Prompt Engineering in Software Development

Prompt engineering has emerged as a critical yet undertaught skill for software developers, one that traditional learning approaches are ill-equipped to support given its evolving, interactive, and context-dependent nature. In this paper, we introduce Prompt Coach (PC), an agentic tutor that helps developers learn how to craft high-quality code-generation prompts through Socratic guidance embedded in-flow within their IDE. PC evaluates prompt quality across multiple dimensions and surfaces targeted questions to guide self-correction, grounded in the developer's codebase and the behavior of the target LLM. We present an early empirical study with 15 professional developers combining quantitative prompt quality scoring with qualitative perception measures. Participants showed statistically significant improvements after a single 60-minute session, with the largest gains across dimensions commonly overlooked by developers. They also reported strong trust, high adoption readiness, and unanimous agreement that PC improved their prompt-writing skills.

Rohit Mehra, Kapil Singi, Vikrant Kaulgud +5

Accenture Labs, India · Accenture, India · Accenture, USA

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Prompt Engineering AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 6, 2026cs.SE

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 Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 1, 2026cs.SE

Adoption and Impact of Command-Line AI Coding Agents: A Study of Microsoft's Early 2026 Rollout of Claude Code and GitHub Copilot CLI

Organizations rolling out agentic command line tools like Anthropic's Claude Code and GitHub's Copilot CLI need to know who will try them, who will keep using them, and whether the tools produce enough output to justify their cost. At organizational scale, token spend can run into millions of dollars annually, so misreading adoption, retention, or impact can make a rollout expensive without changing engineering velocity. Studying tens of thousands of engineers at Microsoft over its early-2026 rollout, we find that first use spread primarily through social networks, retention was associated more with engineers' coding activity than with demographics, and adopters merged roughly 24% more pull requests than they would have otherwise. We use merged pull requests as our proxy for output -- acknowledging that a merged PR is not the same as the value it delivers -- and the lift persists across our four-month window. These results suggest that CLI coding agents are neither uniformly adopted nor mere novelty effects and that organizations should treat visible peer use as central to rollout strategy.

Emerson Murphy-Hill, Jenna Butler, Alexandra Savelieva

Microsoft

AI Coding Agents AI-Assisted Software Development

Jul 1, 2026cs.SE

Cheap Code, Costly Judgment: A Case Study on Governable Agentic Software Engineering

Generative AI is shifting software engineering from a practice organized around scarce implementation effort toward one organized around abundant, low-cost code production. This shift changes the central engineering problem: not whether AI can generate useful code, but how engineers organize architectures, tools, evidence, and feedback loops so that AI-mediated development remains inspectable, correctable, and maintainable. We study this problem through a first-person case study: a 12-week development effort in which a single expert software engineer used frontier AI coding agents to build a document accessibility remediation system. The empirical record comprises 88 contemporaneous field notes, 420 KLOC of production code, and 1.16 MLOC of tests, lints, supporting documentation, and agent tooling. From this record, we develop a candidate middle-range theory of governance conversion, expressed as a process model explaining how high-velocity agentic implementation becomes governable. The model explains how agentic implementation velocity surfaces recurring structural failure classes, and how engineering judgment sustains velocity by converting those failures into durable governance mechanisms. In contrast to existing governance models that derive controls from known obligations, governance conversion explains how controls are discovered from failures that become visible only during agentic work. We use our model to make testable predictions and to describe implications for software engineering research and practice.

James C. Davis, Paschal C. Amusuo, Tanmay Singla +2

Purdue University

Software Engineering Agents AI Agent Governance Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Jun 30, 2026cs.AI

Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy: Detecting Epistemic Aims and Processes in Student-AI Co-Programming

Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly in programming contexts where learners must construct queries, evaluate and validate AI-generated outputs, and regulate problem-solving strategies. This study introduces the conceptual framework of Epistemic AI Literacy (EAIL), reframing AI literacy as a process-oriented epistemic phenomenon that emerges through dynamic human-AI interactions across different domains. Drawing on the AIR (epistemic aims, ideals and reliable epistemic processes) framework, this study examines how epistemic aims and epistemic processes are enacted in GenAI-supported co-programming activities and explores scalable approaches for operationalizing these constructs in interaction data. Using a large dialogue dataset of human-AI co-programming, this study identifies observable dimensions of epistemic aims (i.e., mastery-oriented aims) and epistemic processes (i.e., outsourcing, explanation seeking, verification seeking, prompt monitoring, and epistemic justification). The results reveal a prevalent lack of EAIL, with 78.8% of student-GenAI interactions relying on non-mastery-oriented aims and less reliable epistemic strategies like outsourcing and verification-seeking. Conversely, only 11.1% of interactions showed high epistemic engagement, where mastery-oriented aims were coupled with advanced epistemic strategies like epistemic justification in a more reliable epistemic process.

Mengqian Wu

™McGill University, Quebec, Canada

AI Literacy Generative AI in Education Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development

Jun 29, 2026cs.HC

To Tab or Not to Tab: Measuring Critical Engagement in AI Code Completion Tools Using Behavioral Signals and Attention Checks

AI code completion tools, such as Github Copilot, provide students with code suggestions to help them write programs. However, recent qualitative studies suggest that students fail to critically evaluate these suggestions. We present Clover, a code completion tool that logs students' interactions with code suggestions and additionally offers attention checks to probe reflective engagement during programming tasks. We also develop a taxonomy of behavioral interaction metrics for AI-assisted programming, informed by literature. We analyzed relationships between interaction patterns, engagement with attention checks, and task performance. We observed that higher rates of tab accept were associated with lower attention check performance, while increased dwell time was associated with higher attention check performance. We conclude by discussing how programming process data and attention checks might support reflective engagement in AI-assisted programming.

Jessica Hutchison, Ian Tyler Applebaum, Kenneth Angelikas +6

Temple University Philadelphia, USA

Computer Science Education AI in Education Code Generation Human-AI Collaboration AI-Assisted Software Development