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.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping the nature of work in software development, transforming user roles, workflows, and collaboration patterns across enterprise platforms. This qualitative study investigates how AI alters professional responsibilities within the context of SAP's Business Technology Platform (BTP), combining expert interviews (n=20) and a participatory workshop (n=24). The results reveal substantial shifts in day-to-day tasks and roles in the development domain, characterized by increasing automation of operational tasks, expanding human-AI collaboration, and growing reliance on agentic AI systems. The study further identifies significant implications for existing user-role frameworks, such as the BTP User Type Matrix, which requires adaptation as the workforce is undergoing significant role specific changes. Collectively, these findings highlight a workforce landscape in transition and underscore the need for revised role taxonomies, new governance and oversight functions, and updated design approaches for AI-native enterprise software systems.

As coding agents are rapidly changing software engineering, a natural question is: what are the core skills needed by future software engineers? To identify where software engineering is headed and thus what skills will be needed, we summarize the results of two round-tables with researchers and industrial practitioners, held in 2026 in New York and Singapore. One key finding is that verification and validation is increasing in importance as agents handle implementation, as highlighted by anecdotes from the events. From our observations, we identify the skills developers need in the agentic era of development, with implications for training and educating future software engineers in coming years.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support software development, but their practical usefulness in applied game-development settings remains underexplored, especially when generated code must be integrated into an existing game software system. This paper presents an exploratory empirical case study of GPT-4o in a custom Python/Pygame endless runner. The study examines six selected development tasks: three localized refactoring tasks and three tasks involving gameplay feature generation. The resulting implementations were evaluated using software metrics, unit tests, and manual gameplay assessments. In this case study, all three selected refactoring tasks were completed successfully in functional terms, whereas only one of the three selected gameplay feature generation tasks resulted in a correctly integrated feature. The findings suggest that, in this setting, GPT-4o handled localized transformations more reliably than tasks requiring new gameplay interactions across multiple existing systems. Given the exploratory single-case design, these results are best interpreted as indicative observations rather than as generalizable evidence of category-level model performance. Overall, the paper contributes a transparent case-based account of the opportunities and limitations of LLM-assisted refactoring and gameplay feature generation in an existing game software system.

Software engineering has long inferred where a system's knowledge resides from who authored its code. The truck factor, the Degree-of-Authorship metric, and the degree-of-knowledge model all rest on one inference -- that authoring a region of code is evidence of understanding it -- and for most of software's history it was a workable proxy, because code entered a repository only when a human wrote it, which forced at least transient understanding. This paper argues that AI code generation severs that inference at its root, and that the consequence is not the degradation of the authorship-based metrics but their invalidation as a class. When an agent generates a module and a human merges it, the version-control record still attributes authorship, but the attribution no longer licenses any conclusion about comprehension: the same footprint is now compatible with full, partial, or no understanding. The metric still returns a number; the number measures a substrate that has come uncoupled from the quantity it was used to estimate. The collapse is corroborated by the field's own measurement failures, and the methodological corollary is load-bearing: the instrument the comprehension-debt era needs cannot be built by refining the knowledge-concentration metrics, because no function of an authorship footprint recovers an inference the footprint no longer supports. The replacement must be grounded in evidence of comprehension rather than authorship. I state a falsifiable prediction that discriminates the two -- that systems with a healthy authorship-derived truck factor but low comprehension-measured retention will suffer incident-resolution failures the authorship metric does not predict -- and argue that building the comprehension-grounded instrument at the scale of a system and a team is the field's open measurement problem, left open here.

The transition to Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC) introduces considerable implementation complexity, requiring strict adherence to constant-time execution, side channel resistance, and precise parametrisation. Simultaneously, large language models (LLMs) are heavily embedded in software development workflows, including cryptographic engineering. While LLMs improve productivity, evidence shows that they frequently generate insecure or suboptimal code, particularly in security critical domains. This paper introduces Secure Coding Drift in PQC, a novel socio technical vulnerability model capturing the gradual degradation of secure coding practices due to sustained reliance on LLM-generated code. Unlike prior work that focuses on static vulnerabilities, we conceptualise security risk as a longitudinal behavioural phenomenon rising from human AI interaction. To mitigate this, we propose a gamified, LLM augmented secure coding framework that embeds adversarial evaluation, behavioural feedback, and security scoring into development workflows. Our approach reframes LLMs from passive assistants into active security co-pilots, contributing toward safer PQC implementation in AI mediated environments.

Prompting has become the primary interface between humans and generative AI, yet many natural language prompts remain fragile: roles, goals, constraints, and expected outputs are often buried in prose or left implicit. In agentic and software development workflows, a misread at the first handoff can propagate through every step, since a significant portion of agent failures stem from context ambiguities rather than model limitations. This paper introduces PromptMN, a pseudo-prompting domain-specific language that annotates natural language with compact, %-prefixed typed directives covering roles, goals, requirements, priorities, constraints, plans, inputs, and outputs. Semantic resolution lets authors write in any order while the model interprets directives by function. PromptMN sits between informal prompting and programming-style pseudocode: structured enough to be inspectable and reusable, yet lightweight enough for analysts, managers, developers, and stakeholders across the software development lifecycle (SDLC). PromptMN also pairs with reverse prompt engineering. Asking a model to restate a desired outcome as PromptMN lets users inspect the inferred roles, goals, constraints, and missing assumptions before acting, reducing repair cycles and yielding a reusable artifact for aligning people and AI tools. PromptMN's feasibility is evaluated across several frontier models, including Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5. The models correctly resolved PromptMN instructions, including complex structures such as repetition, conditionals, methods, and a prime-checking task, without fine-tuning. The same vocabulary applies across new codebases, maintenance, and redesign in the SDLC scenarios presented. While large-scale validation remains future work, these early results suggest PromptMN is a practical step toward clearer, more reviewable human-to-AI interaction.

Recent advances in both Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) have seen a step change in their ability to perform visual code completion, but the aerospace industry, which prioritizes safety and explainabilty over rapid LLM adoption, currently has no publicly announced LLM-based geometric design copilot systems in commercial use by aerospace Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). This paper presents a LLM-based visual programming copilot application for aerospace engineering design tasks, using a visual programming variant of the ReAct methodology and GPT 5.4. In addition to the copilot, we describe Wingbuilder, a new Grasshopper plugin library with custom components for aerospace-specific geometry abstraction, and an associated Aerospace Visual Programming Dataset (AVPD) with 18 aerospace expert designed tasks at different levels of difficulty alongside ground truth solutions. We evaluate our copilot application with a user trial involving two experienced aerospace engineers from a large aircraft manufacturing company. We find our copilot visual programming ReAct methodology was successful in generating suggestions that participants found helpful, but slow ReAct inference times limit its usefulness to more complex time-consuming tasks where waiting for good copilot solution suggestion was worthwhile. Participants reported they liked the tool and would be willing to use it in the future.

The adoption of AI-powered Integrated Development Environments (AI IDEs) has introduced "Rules" as a novel software artifact, allowing developers to persistently inject project-specific constraints and architectural guidelines into the context of Large Language Models (LLMs). Despite their role in aligning AI behavior with developer intent, the taxonomy, evolution, and practical impact of these rules remain largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods empirical study on AI IDE rules. By mining 83 open-source projects and extracting 7,310 rules, we established a comprehensive taxonomy comprising 5 primary and 25 secondary categories. We then triangulated these artifacts with survey responses from 99 practitioners. Our analysis identified a contrast between developer priorities and actual configurations: while practitioners rate architectural constraints as highly important, rule files in repositories primarily consist of low-level workflow and code formatting constraints. Furthermore, our analysis of 1,540 rule evolution events revealed that rules are updated frequently. Repository data further indicate that rule evolution is primarily driven by constructive context expansions (29.17%) and enrichments (26.59%). In contrast, surveyed developers reported modifying rules primarily to correct AI errors (77.78%), typically by adding new negative constraints rather than editing existing ones. Finally, an artifact compliance assessment of 160 rule evolution events revealed that updating rules significantly improves the adherence of software artifacts, with the average artifact compliance rate increasing by 22.99% (from 49.14% to 72.13%) following an update. Our study provides empirical insights that can help developers optimize prompting strategies and guide tool builders in designing automated conflict-detection and context-management mechanisms for AI IDEs.

Developers increasingly provide AI coding assistants with persistent context through configuration files such as CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and .cursorrules. These files describe code elements, architecture, and development conventions, forming the context that guides AI tool behavior across sessions. As software evolves, this context can become stale, a phenomenon we call context rot. While AI configuration artifacts are new, the underlying consistency problem connects to decades of software documentation research. Researchers have built tools to check consistency between documentation and code, spanning README files, code comments, API documentation, architecture descriptions, and installation instructions. We argue that this existing toolbox is an immediate starting point for detecting context rot, and we present a research roadmap mapping documentation consistency approaches to corresponding problems in this new setting. As preliminary evidence, applying an existing README/wiki consistency checker to a statistically representative sample of 356 repositories identifies stale code element references in 23.0% of repositories, showing that traditional documentation consistency tools can already surface context rot.

Modernization of legacy scientific codes is often necessary to keep up with the ever-evolving changes in the compute resource ecosystem. Parallelization and migration from poorly supported software ecosystems are two of the most time-consuming activities in the research software engineering field. This paper presents our experience in the successful, two-phase AI-assisted modernization of NMAP-RKPM, a roughly 60,000-line, 3D explicit solid mechanics physics engine based on the Reproducing Kernel Particle Method (RKPM). We converted this single-threaded, Fortran based MPI application into a OpenMP-parallel C++ based MPI tool in the span of a few months. While Large Language Model (LLM) based tools on their own proved inadequate, we developed a highly structured "hand-holding" agentic AI methodology, like providing manually created examples, ensuring continuous buildability and limiting session scope, that was instead highly effective. The paper provides both the AI-assisted steps that were successful and the problems that we had to overcome, alongside the reasoning behind the chosen path.

I report a case study in AI-paired software engineering: five working ports of a vector illustration application across Rust, Swift, OCaml, Python, and browser-based platforms, built by a single developer in approximately 120 evening hours. The methodology pairs AI-assisted implementation with two safeguards -- a precise executable YAML specification serving as the single source of truth, and parallel implementations functioning as a built-in differential-testing layer. The five ports share a 23{,}000-line specification; per-port native code ranges from 0 to roughly 95{,}000 lines, reflecting the specification's escape hatch. I argue that AI-paired engineering, conditional on these two safeguards, makes feasible scope of work that conventionally requires multiple developer-years, and frame the methodology as a revival of N-version programming, a 1980s approach abandoned on cost grounds that AI changes. The paper reports concrete artifacts and honest limitations of the single-developer case study.

AI is changing how software engineers work, but it often comes with hidden burdens and costs. In this paper, we characterize two such often-overlooked burdens: (1) the constant need for human oversight and inspection of AI-generated artifacts; and (2) the growing cognitive overload on software engineers from receiving large amounts of suggestions from AI tools. The need for human oversight is not optional-engineers must review, validate, and sometimes rework what AI produces. At the same time, the flood of AI suggestions, prompts, and possible solutions can leave developers mentally stretched. By blending evidence from recent opinions from practitioners, we highlight these often-overlooked challenges and open a conversation about how teams can handle them in day-to-day AI-assisted software engineering.

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.

AI-assisted coding tools have altered software production. At Meta, significant lines of code per human-landed diff grew by 105.9% year over year and per-developer diff volume rose 51%, with agentic AI responsible for over 80% of that growth. Meanwhile, the share of diffs receiving timely review has declined, exposing a widening gap between code supply and reviewer bandwidth. We ask three questions that progress from feasibility through calibration to impact: (1) can risk-stratified automation operate at scale across diverse organizations, (2) how does tuning the risk threshold affect the trade-off between automation yield and safety, and (3) to what extent does automated review reduce end-to-end latency for AI-generated changes? We deployed RADAR (Risk Aware Diff Auto Review), a multi-stage funnel that classifies each diff by authorship and source type, applies eligibility gates, static heuristics, a machine-learned Diff Risk Score, LLM-based Automated Code Review, and deterministic validation before landing qualifying changes. We evaluate RADAR through telemetry covering 535K+ RADAR-reviewed diffs, observational before-after comparisons for policy changes, and difference-in-differences analysis of efficiency outcomes. RADAR has reviewed 535K+ diffs and landed 331K+. Relaxing the Diff Risk Score threshold from the 25th to the 50th percentile increased the approve rate to 60.31%. The revert rate for RADAR-reviewed diffs is 1/3 that of non-RADAR diffs, and the Production Incident rate is 1/50 that of non-RADAR diffs. RADAR reduces median time to close by over 330% and median diff review wall time by 35%. Risk-aware layered automation can materially reduce review bottlenecks created by AI-driven code growth without compromising production safety.

AI-assisted code review tools typically operate as generic "expert reviewer" agents, producing homogeneous findings regardless of the analysis type needed. We present a system that constrains AI reviewer behavior through philosophical dispositions -- coherent personality lenses grounded in specific epistemological traditions (Pyrrhonist Skepticism, Navya-Ny=aya logic, Diogenes' Cynicism, Confucian relational ethics) that direct attention to structurally different types of issues. Each disposition is defined apophatically (by what it refuses to do), equipped with a self-monitoring failure mode (hamartia), and orchestrated in sequence by role protocols. We evaluate this system on 50 merged pull requests across 7 repositories spanning 5 programming languages (Python, Go, C++, Java, Terraform), 5 organizations (2 enterprise, 3 open-source), and 2 temporal eras (pre-AI 2020, post-AI 2024--2026). The disposition system achieves 46% convergence with human reviewers (validating signal quality), identifies unique findings at a 75% rate, and produces no findings judged false-positive by the author across 601 total findings (inter-rater agreement was not assessed and remains a limitation). A controlled baseline comparison demonstrates that 51% of disposition findings are not produced by the same model using generic "expert reviewer" prompting, and these unique findings target structural, operational, and logical concerns rather than standard code-level issues. Preliminary cross-model validation (Claude Opus vs.\ GPT Codex 5.3-xhigh) on 3 PRs shows 100% framework-structure adherence with 39% finding-level agreement, suggesting the framework provides real behavioral constraint while preserving model-specific analytical perspective.

AI-based code assistants are transforming software development, yet we lack empirical evidence on how they affect developers' cognitive processes. We present a multisite study investigating the neurophysiological correlates of AI-assisted programming through a within-subjects crossover design. We recruited participants at two universities (Bari, Italy, and Copenhagen, Denmark) and collected electroencephalography, eye-tracking, electrodermal activity, and heart rate variability data alongside a rubric-based performance score and self-reported workload across six dimensions using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). We tested four hypotheses addressing physiological differences between AI-assisted and non-assisted conditions, the moderating role of developer experience, the association between physiology and performance, and the alignment between subjective perceptions and objective measures. Under AI assistance, the EEG $θ/α$ ratio was lower during the first task and the gaze blink rate was higher during the second, both consistent with reduced cognitive engagement when developers offload generative effort to the model. This pattern did not differ between undergraduate and graduate students. Electrodermal activity correlated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. Among the six NASA-TLX dimensions of self-reported workload, only Physical demand was associated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. These findings suggest that AI-assisted programming is not a faster version of solo coding but a cognitively distinct activity, with implications for the design of AI assistants and for biometric monitoring in AI-augmented development.

Legacy systems concentrate business rules, architectural decisions, and operational exceptions that often remain implicit in code, data, configuration, and maintenance practices. At the same time, language-model-based coding agents depend on reliable context, correctness criteria, and behavioral contracts to modify real systems with lower risk. This paper presents Reversa, a reverse documentation engineering framework for converting legacy software into traceable operational specifications for AI agents. Reversa organizes this process as a multi-agent pipeline: specialized agents map the project surface, analyze modules, extract implicit rules, synthesize architecture, write unit-level specifications, and review generated claims. The proposal emphasizes three mechanisms: traceability between code and specification, explicit confidence marking, and preservation of gaps for human validation. The framework is distributed as a Node.js CLI, installs skills across multiple agent engines, and uses a SHA-256 manifest to preserve modified files during update or uninstall operations. In addition to the architectural description, we report an exploratory case study on migrating an ATM from COBOL to Go, in which the pipeline produced 517 claims classified by an internal confidence index, 10 registered gaps, 53 Gherkin parity scenarios, and a reconstruction plan with 9 of 11 tasks completed at inventory time. Final parity validation and cutover were not completed in this study. We do not claim broad empirical superiority; we position the contribution with respect to the literature on reverse engineering, LLM-based documentation, and software agents, and propose an evaluation protocol with metrics for coverage, traceability, confidence, utility, and cost.

AI-enabled features built on LLMs and agentic workflows are difficult to test, debug, and reproduce, especially for product-focused software engineers without a machine learning background. We present the AI Toolkit plugin for JetBrains IDEs, which brings tracing and evaluation directly into the Run/Debug loop. A mixed methods study with practitioners presents three consistent needs: (1) make evaluation regular and repeatable, (2) expose traces at the moment of execution, and (3) minimize setup and context switching. Guided by these needs, the AI Toolkit introduces an IDE-native workflow: run-triggered trace capture; immediate, hierarchical inspection; one-click "Add to Dataset" from traces; and unit-test-like evaluations with pluggable metrics. The first release in PyCharm shows promising early signals - strong conversion when promoted at Run, sustained usage among those who capture traces, and low churn - suggesting that IDE-native observability lowers activation energy and helps developers adopt disciplined practices. We detail the design and implementation of the AI Agents Debugger and AI Evaluation, report initial adoption telemetry, and outline next steps to broaden framework coverage and scale evaluations. Together, these results indicate that integrating AI observability and evaluation into everyday IDE workflows can make modern AI development accessible to non-ML specialists while preserving software-engineering practices.

The article explores the use of agentic software engineering (ASE) in the development of innovative audio software. It begins with a review of background work that lays out the challenges of longevity, interoperability and barriers to entry in digital music instrument creation, explaining recent developments in ASE and highlighting the possibility that ASE can lower barriers to entry and facilitate creation of interoperable software with greater longevity. Following that, we present case studies wherein we used ASE technology in three distinct ways to develop audio software in the C++ language with the JUCE framework. In case study 1, we re-implement Laurie Spiegel's Music Mouse' software as a native plugin. In case study 2, we translate Pachet's Continuator' system from Python into a native plugin. In case study 3, we develop a new 3D user interface for an existing `tracker' sequencer using OpenGL. We describe the experiences of the human developer in the case studies via autoethnographic discussion of the prompt logs and snapshots of the software as it was developed. We identify effective practice for ASE use in this domain and suggest future steps for the work involving evaluation of the method with non-programmer musicians.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and agentic systems are moving software engineering from code-centric production toward intent-centric human-agent work in which natural language, repository context, tools, tests, and governance shape delivery. Prior studies examine code generation, AI pair programming, and software engineering agents, but less is known about how public technical discourse and peer-reviewed evidence together frame the profession's near-term transition. This study addresses that gap through a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) dominant and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) informed public-discourse and document analysis. The corpus combines peer-reviewed software engineering and AI literature, technical benchmarks, public talks and interviews, essays, product-facing technical announcements, and X-originated discourse from prominent AI and software engineering voices. Sources were organized through a corpus register, codebook, coding matrix, theme-to-source traceability table, DOI/reference audit, and reproducibility protocol. The analysis shows that GenAI lowers the cost of producing plausible code while increasing the importance of intent specification, context curation, architecture knowledge, verification, security, provenance, governance, and accountable human judgment. The findings indicate that software engineering is becoming less about isolated code authorship and more about supervising, validating, and governing socio-technical systems of humans, agents, tools, and evidence gates. This matters because speed-focused adoption can accumulate hidden technical debt and accountability gaps, whereas bounded autonomy can preserve quality, security, maintainability, and trust.

Despite the widespread adoption of agile methods, achieving true agility at scale remains elusive. Large-scale agile frameworks remain largely human-centric and manual, relying on coordination meetings, artifact synchronization, and role-based handoffs that inhibit real-time adaptation. Meanwhile, rapid advances in AI, particularly large language models, have begun transforming software engineering, yet their potential for organizational-level agility remains underexplored. We present the AI-Native Large-Scale Agile Software Development Manifesto: a set of values and principles that redefine how large-scale software development is organized when AI becomes a first-class participant rather than a peripheral tool. The manifesto is grounded in six principles, parallel processes, intent-driven teams, living knowledge, verification-first assurance, orchestrated agent workforces, and reusable blueprints, that together shift development from a meeting-driven, document-heavy, sequential process to an intelligent, adaptive, continuously learning system.

Large language model (LLM)-based coding assistants have made substantial progress, yet most systems remain reactive, requiring developers to explicitly formulate their needs. Proactive coding assistants aim to infer latent developer intent from integrated development environment (IDE) interactions and repository context, thereby reducing interaction overhead and supporting more seamless assistance. However, research in this direction is limited by the scarcity of large-scale real-world developer behavior data. Existing studies therefore often rely on LLM-simulated IDE traces, whose fidelity to real development behavior remains unclear. In this paper, we investigate this simulation-to-reality gap through a large-scale empirical study. We collect real IDE interaction traces from 1{,}246 experienced industry developers over three consecutive days using a custom Visual Studio Code extension, and construct paired LLM-simulated traces for controlled comparison. Our analysis shows that simulated traces differ substantially from real traces in behavioral diversity, temporal structure, and exploratory patterns. Based on the collected data, we introduce \textbf{ProCodeBench}, a real-world benchmark for proactive intent prediction. Experiments with representative LLMs, retrieval-augmented methods, and agentic baselines show that current approaches remain far from reliable under real IDE traces, suggesting that simulation-based evaluation can overestimate real-world performance. Finally, our training study shows that simulated data cannot replace real data, but can complement it when used before real-world fine-tuning. These findings highlight the importance of real developer behavior data for evaluating and training proactive coding assistants.

AI-assisted development tools enable rapid prototyping of services but often lack awareness of architectural constraints, infrastructure dependencies, and organizational standards required in production environments. Consequently, generated artifacts may exhibit brittle behavior and limited deployability. We propose a retrieval-augmented scaffolding approach that combines platform-based code generation with agentic clarification loops to expose and resolve architectural constraint ambiguities. By combining template retrieval with structured interaction, the method embeds production-relevant considerations during service scaffolding. Evaluation indicates improved architectural consistency and deployability compared to general-purpose AI code generation workflows, suggesting that constraint-aware retrieval is essential for aligning AI-assisted service development with production software engineering practices.

AI coding assistants and autonomous agents are becoming integral to software development workflows, reshaping how code is produced, reviewed, and maintained. While recent research has focused mainly on the capabilities and impacts of productivity of these systems, much less attention has been paid to accountability: who is responsible when agents generate, modify, or recommend code? In practice, accountability is defined through the Terms of Service (ToS) and related policy documents that govern the use of AI-powered development tools. In this vision paper, we present a comparative analysis of the Terms of Service for widely used AI coding assistants and agent-enabled development tools. We examine how these documents allocate ownership, responsibility, liability, and disclosure obligations between tool providers and software developers, and we identify common patterns and divergences between providers. Our analysis reveals a consistent tendency to shift responsibility for correctness, safety, and legal compliance onto users, as well as substantial variation in how providers address issues such as indemnification, data reuse, and acceptable use. Based on these findings, we argue that existing policy frameworks are poorly aligned with increasingly agent-mediated and autonomous software development workflows. We outline a research roadmap for accountable agents in software engineering, identifying challenges and opportunities for modeling responsibility, designing governance artifacts, developing tooling that supports accountability, and conducting empirical studies of developers' perceptions and practices.

This paper analyzes the strategic education process aimed at transitioning traditional software development squads into hybrid structures centered on collaborative work between humans and Artificial Intelligence (AI). In a context where human-AI collaboration can significantly increase productivity, this study explores how the upskilling of XPTO professionals, referred to as AI Advocates, acts as a catalyst for cultural and technical transformation. The objective is to present an experience report on the education and enablement process of AI Advocates within a private Brazilian technology company, highlighting key lessons learned and identified challenges.

State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation at the function level. However, the output quality significantly declines when scaling to repository-level systems. Current workflows relying only on natural language prompts suffer from inherent ambiguity and a lack of verifiability. To address this, we propose structured spec-driven engineering (SSDE), a paradigm that leverages structured artifacts to guide LLM generation. We argue that structured specifications as LLM inputs make high-quality, repository-level code generation a tangible goal, while at the same time offering superior verifiability, leading to significant potential for improvement. We first investigate the feasibility of this vision through a pilot study generating Model-View-Controller (MVC) business logic for three software systems using five LLMs, and then highlight the potential, challenges, and future roadmap for SSDE.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential across a wide range of software engineering tasks, including software design, an area traditionally regarded as highly dependent on human expertise and judgment. However, there has been little research focusing on how LLMs are used in software design, nor on the associated benefits and drawbacks. This paper aims to bridge this gap by empirically investigating how software developers utilize LLMs in the context of software design. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a mining study of 291 developer-ChatGPT conversations shared on GitHub with a survey of 65 software practitioners. Our findings reveal nine distinct categories of design tasks supported by ChatGPT, including architecture design, data model design, and the use of design patterns. We further characterize developer-ChatGPT interactions, showing that developers primarily use ChatGPT for knowledge acquisition and design-related code generation, with most tasks situated at the detailed design level. The study identifies seven key benefits of utilizing LLMs in software design as perceived by developers, such as better technology selection and the early detection of design flaws. We also uncover six limitations, including the generation of overly lengthy and difficult-to-read outputs, the creation of inexecutable or incorrect code, and a heavy reliance on context that can lead to hallucinated results. These findings provide an evidence-based characterization of current LLM use in software design from both open-source and practitioner perspectives, highlighting a tension between perceived benefits and limitations, which lays a foundation for future research and the development of effective techniques and tools to integrate LLMs into software design practices.

Since 2022, AI-powered coding assistants have produced contradictory evidence: controlled studies report 20-56% productivity gains on well-scoped tasks, while the most rigorous RCT documents a 19% slowdown for experienced developers, and telemetry across 10,000+ developers shows 98% more pull requests but 91% longer review times with flat delivery metrics. This paper argues these findings constitute the Productivity-Reliability Paradox (PRP): a systematic phenomenon emerging from non-deterministic code generators and insufficient specification discipline. Through a multivocal literature review of 67 sources (2022-2026), this paper: (1) formally defines the PRP with three moderating variables (task abstraction, codebase maturity, developer experience) and two amplifying mechanisms (code review bottleneck, context window constraint); (2) proposes the AI-Augmented Methodology Taxonomy (AAMT), classifying six methodologies under three AI integration tiers; (3) introduces the Specification Governance Model (SGM), grounded in Transaction Cost Economics, with a practical governance decision guide; and (4) evaluates Spec Kit and TDAD as SGM instantiations via a four-month pilot study. Specification discipline, not model capability, is the binding constraint on AI-assisted software dependability.

Understanding how developers interact with AI coding assistants requires more than chat logs or git histories in isolation; it requires reconstructing the full context: which prompt led to which edit, what the developer tried and discarded, and how their strategy evolved over time. We present RECAP (Replay and Examine Captured AI Programming), an open-source platform that (1) passively records AI chat sessions and fine-grained code edits inside VS Code without disrupting the developer's workflow, (2) merges them into a unified timeline for interactive session replay, and (3) exposes an extensible analysis layer, with example modules for behavioral classification and AI reliance measurement. Deployed in a university software engineering course, RECAP captured 2,034 prompts and 8,239 code edits from 41 students across a multi-week project. We demonstrate how the platform's linked data and replay capabilities enable analyses of developer-AI interaction patterns that no single data source could support.