pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.00496 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-31 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.SE

From Junior to Senior: Allocating Agency and Navigating Professional Growth in Agentic AI-Mediated Software Engineering

Dana Feng , Bhada Yun , April Yi Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AIcs.SE
keywords agencyagentic AIsoftware engineeringjunior developerssenior developersorganizational policiesprofessional growthmixed-methods study
0
0 comments X

The pith

In agentic AI-mediated software engineering, agency is constrained primarily by organizational policies rather than individual preferences.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines how junior and senior software engineers allocate and maintain agency when working with increasingly autonomous AI tools. It establishes that organizational policies limit control more than personal choices do, as seniors retain direction through detailed delegation while juniors oscillate between over-reliance and cautious avoidance. The distinction matters because AI is altering not only coding practices but also who directs the work and how developers build expertise over time. Through a three-phase mixed-methods study involving seniors in a Delphi process, juniors in a debugging task, and blind reviews of prompt histories, the authors surface accounts of these dynamics. The synthesis leads to suggested practices for preserving agency in coding, learning, and mentorship as AI autonomy increases.

Core claim

Agency in software engineering is primarily constrained by organizational policies rather than individual preferences, with experienced developers maintaining control through detailed delegation while novices struggle between over-reliance and cautious avoidance. Seniors leverage pre-AI foundational instincts to steer modern tools and possess valuable perspectives for mentoring juniors in their early AI-encouraged career development.

What carries the argument

Junior-senior contrast in agency allocation strategies when using agentic AI tools, revealed through mixed-methods accounts of delegation, reliance, and policy influence.

Load-bearing premise

The small samples of five seniors in the Delphi process, ten juniors in the debugging task, and five seniors for blind reviews are sufficient to support general claims about junior-senior differences across the field.

What would settle it

A larger study across multiple organizations finding that individual preferences override organizational policies in shaping how developers use agentic AI would undermine the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00496 by April Yi Wang, Bhada Yun, Dana Feng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Agency allocation patterns in AI-mediated software engineering across task familiarity. Left panel shows coding during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Debugging task interface showing the React-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Survey responses across all three phases regarding AI adoption and confidence. Comparative bar charts showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results from Phase 2 (P2). Figure showing debugging task data for 10 junior engineers. Columns show participant ID [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Post-task survey responses from Phase 2 junior engineers. Five bar charts displaying participants’ self-reported [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Senior engineer S1’s Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) decomposition of debugging workflows. Task diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Senior engineer S2’s Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) decomposition of feature creation workflows. Task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Senior engineer S3’s Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) decomposition of feature creation workflows. Com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Senior engineer S4’s Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) decomposition of feature creation workflows. Detailed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Senior engineer S5’s Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) decomposition of debugging workflows. Systematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Juniors enter as AI-natives, seniors adapted mid-career. AI is not just changing how engineers code-it is reshaping who holds agency across work and professional growth. We contribute junior-senior accounts on their usage of agentic AI through a three-phase mixed-methods study: ACTA combined with a Delphi process with 5 seniors, an AI-assisted debugging task with 10 juniors, and blind reviews of junior prompt histories by 5 more seniors. We found that agency in software engineering is primarily constrained by organizational policies rather than individual preferences, with experienced developers maintaining control through detailed delegation while novices struggle between over-reliance and cautious avoidance. Seniors leverage pre-AI foundational instincts to steer modern tools and possess valuable perspectives for mentoring juniors in their early AI-encouraged career development. From synthesis of results, we suggest three practices that focus on preserving agency in software engineering for coding, learning, and mentorship, especially as AI grows increasingly autonomous.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a three-phase mixed-methods study (ACTA combined with a Delphi process involving 5 seniors, an AI-assisted debugging task with 10 juniors, and blind reviews of prompt histories by 5 additional seniors) on how junior and senior software engineers allocate agency when using agentic AI tools. It claims that agency is primarily constrained by organizational policies rather than individual preferences, with seniors maintaining control via detailed delegation while juniors oscillate between over-reliance and cautious avoidance; it further synthesizes three practices for preserving agency in coding, learning, and mentorship.

Significance. If the results hold, the work could inform AI tool design, organizational policies, and mentorship practices in software engineering by documenting experience-based differences in how developers interact with increasingly autonomous AI. The mixed-methods design offers a timely qualitative lens on professional growth in AI-mediated environments, though the absence of quantitative metrics or robustness checks limits its immediate applicability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Three-phase mixed-methods study (Delphi with 5 seniors, debugging task with 10 juniors, blind reviews by 5 seniors)] The central claim that agency is primarily constrained by organizational policies (rather than preferences) and the junior-senior distinctions in delegation vs. over-reliance/avoidance rest on thematic synthesis from a total of 20 participants across three phases. No saturation criterion, inter-rater reliability, power analysis, or cross-organizational sampling is described, which directly undermines the generalizability asserted in the findings and suggested practices.
  2. [Findings on agency constraints and suggested practices] The distinction between policy constraints and preference-driven behavior is presented as a headline result without supporting quantitative metrics, error estimates, or falsifiable tests; this interpretive leap from the small convenience sample is load-bearing for the paper's contribution but lacks the evidentiary grounding needed to support field-wide claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces ACTA without definition or citation; this should be expanded in the methods section for accessibility.
  2. [Methods] Details on how themes were synthesized across the three phases and how the blind review protocol was implemented would improve methodological transparency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the concerns regarding the methodological rigor and evidentiary support for our claims below, and we will revise the paper accordingly to strengthen these aspects while preserving the qualitative nature of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that agency is primarily constrained by organizational policies (rather than preferences) and the junior-senior distinctions in delegation vs. over-reliance/avoidance rest on thematic synthesis from a total of 20 participants across three phases. No saturation criterion, inter-rater reliability, power analysis, or cross-organizational sampling is described, which directly undermines the generalizability asserted in the findings and suggested practices.

    Authors: We agree that the small sample size and lack of explicit reporting on saturation and inter-rater reliability limit the generalizability of our findings. This is a qualitative exploratory study using established methods like ACTA and Delphi, where the emphasis is on rich, in-depth insights rather than statistical generalizability. We will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated limitations section detailing the sample characteristics, the process of thematic synthesis (including how themes were identified and validated across phases), and explicitly note the absence of saturation criteria and cross-organizational sampling. No power analysis is appropriate here as we are not conducting quantitative hypothesis testing. We will also clarify that the suggested practices are derived from the data and intended as starting points for discussion rather than universally generalizable recommendations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The distinction between policy constraints and preference-driven behavior is presented as a headline result without supporting quantitative metrics, error estimates, or falsifiable tests; this interpretive leap from the small convenience sample is load-bearing for the paper's contribution but lacks the evidentiary grounding needed to support field-wide claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our claims are based on interpretive thematic analysis rather than quantitative metrics or statistical tests. The distinction between organizational policies and individual preferences emerged consistently from the participant data across all three phases, supported by specific examples and quotes from seniors and juniors. We will enhance the findings section by providing more detailed evidence, including additional excerpts from the Delphi process, task observations, and blind reviews to better ground the claims. However, we maintain that requiring quantitative metrics would not align with the qualitative mixed-methods approach of the study. We will revise the language to present the findings as patterns observed in this sample, with appropriate caveats, rather than broad assertions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical claims derived from participant data

full rationale

The paper reports findings from a three-phase mixed-methods study (ACTA, Delphi with 5 seniors, debugging task with 10 juniors, blind reviews by 5 seniors). Central claims about agency constraints, delegation patterns, and junior-senior differences are presented as interpretations of collected interview, task, and review data. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation; the results do not reduce to prior author work or rename inputs as predictions. The study is self-contained against its own empirical inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that self-reported and observed behaviors in small samples reflect stable differences in agency; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Participant accounts from structured interviews and tasks accurately capture real constraints on agency
    Invoked in the study design and synthesis sections of the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1214 out tokens · 22860 ms · 2026-05-16T09:22:17.390760+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Cursor Agents. https://cursor.com/agents. Accessed: 2025-09-08

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    [n. d.]. GitHub Copilot. https://github.com/features/copilot. Accessed: 2025-09- 08

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    [n. d.]. Windsurf IDE. https://windsurf.com/. Accessed: 2025-09-08

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Silvia Abrahão, John Grundy, Mauro Pezzè, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Damian A Tamburri. 2025. Software Engineering by and for Humans in an AI Era.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 5 (2025), 1–46

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Mia Magdalena Bangerl, Leonie Disch, Tamara David, and Viktoria Pammer- Schindler. 2025. CreAItive Collaboration? Users’ Misjudgment of AI-Creativity Affects Their Collaborative Performance. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Ida Bark, Asbjørn Følstad, and Jan Gulliksen. 2006. Use and usefulness of HCI methods: results from an exploratory study among Nordic HCI practitioners. In People and Computers XIX—The Bigger Picture: Proceedings of HCI 2005. Springer, 201–217

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Shraddha Barke, Michael B James, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2023. Grounded copilot: How programmers interact with code-generating models.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages7, OOPSLA1 (2023), 85–111

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2025.The Origin and Opportunities of Developers’ Perceived Code Accountability in Open Source AI Software Development

    Sebastian Clemens Bartsch, Moritz Lother, Jan-Hendrik Schmidt, Martin Adam, and Alexander Benlian. 2025.The Origin and Opportunities of Developers’ Perceived Code Accountability in Open Source AI Software Development. AAAI Press, 94–106

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Daniel Bennett, Oussama Metatla, Anne Roudaut, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2023. How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy?. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580651 18 pages

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580651 2023

  10. [10]

    Austin Biehl, Daniela Perez, Jessica Ingle, and Morgan G Ames. 2025. Prestige and Prejudice: How the Interplay of Recruiting Work and Algorithms Reinforces So- cial Inequities in Software Engineering. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Katherine Bindley. 2025. These AI-Skilled 20-Somethings Are Making Hundreds of Thousands a Year.The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ ai/ai-jobs-entry-level-salary-ab2a11c0 Published August 27, 2025. Retrieved September 4, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Finn Olav Bjørnson and Torgeir Dingsøyr. 2008. Knowledge management in software engineering: A systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used.Information and software technology50, 11 (2008), 1055– 1068

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2021. To trust or to think: cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–21

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Zana Buçinca, Siddharth Swaroop, Amanda E Paluch, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2025. Contrastive explanations that anticipate human miscon- ceptions can improve human decision-making skills. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–25. 17

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Valerie Chen, Alan Zhu, Sebastian Zhao, Hussein Mozannar, David Sontag, and Ameet Talwalkar. 2025. Need Help? Designing Proactive AI Assistants for Pro- gramming. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems. 1–18

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Cedric Chin. 2021. An Easier Method for Extracting Tacit Knowledge. https:// commoncog.com/an-easier-method-for-extracting-tacit-knowledge/. Originally published 28 April 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Rudrajit Choudhuri, Dylan Liu, Igor Steinmacher, Marco Gerosa, and Anita Sarma. 2024. How Far Are We? The Triumphs and Trials of Generative AI in Learning Software Engineering. InProceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’24). Lisbon, Portugal, 1–13. doi:10. 1145/3597503.3639201

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Atacílio Cunha, Tayana Conte, and Bruno Gadelha. 2021. Code Review is just reviewing code? A qualitative study with practitioners in industry. InProceedings of the XXXV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering(Joinville, Brazil) (SBES ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 269–274. doi:10.1145/3474624.3477063

    work page doi:10.1145/3474624.3477063 2021

  19. [19]

    Ali Darvishi, Hassan Khosravi, Shazia Sadiq, Dragan Gašević, and George Siemens. 2024. Impact of AI assistance on student agency.Computers & Education 210 (2024), 104967. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967 Open access (CC BY); Available online 30 Nov 2023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967 2024

  20. [20]

    Daniel C. Dennett. 1978.Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. doi:10.7551/mitpress/11146.001.0001 Anniversary edition published 2017

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/11146.001.0001 1978

  21. [21]

    Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, James Prather, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Thezyrie Amarouche, Brett A Becker, and Brent N Reeves. 2024. Prompt Problems: A new programming exercise for the generative AI era. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 296–302

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische. 1998. What Is Agency?Amer. J. Sociology 103, 4 (1998), 962–1023. doi:10.1086/231294

    work page doi:10.1086/231294 1998

  23. [23]

    Anneli Eteläpelto, Katja Vähäsantanen, Päivi Hökkä, and Susanna Paloniemi

    work page

  24. [24]

    doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001

    What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work.Educational Research Review10 (2013), 45–65. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001 2013

  25. [25]

    Samuel Ferino, Rashina Hoda, John Grundy, and Christoph Treude. 2025. Junior Software Developers’ Perspectives on Adopting LLMs for Software Engineering: a Systematic Literature Review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07556(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Armando Fox, Pablo Fernández, Juho Leinonen, and José Antonio Parejo Maestre

    work page

  27. [27]

    InProceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V

    Using Generative AI to Scaffold the Teaching of Software Engineering Team Skills. InProceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1719–1719

    work page

  28. [28]

    Eduard Frankford, Clemens Sauerwein, Patrick Bassner, Stephan Krusche, and Ruth Breu. 2024. AI-Tutoring in Software Engineering Education. InProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training(Lisbon, Portugal)(ICSE-SEET ’24). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 309–31...

    work page doi:10.1145/3639474.3640061 2024

  29. [29]

    Shyam Sundar

    Andrew Gambino and S. Shyam Sundar. 2019. Acceptance of Self-Driving Cars: Does Their Posthuman Ability Make Them More Eerie or More Desirable?. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3290607.3312870

    work page doi:10.1145/3290607.3312870 2019

  30. [30]

    Cuiyun Gao, Xing Hu, Shan Gao, Xin Xia, and Zhi Jin. 2025. The Current Challenges of Software Engineering in the Era of Large Language Models.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.34, 5, Article 127 (May 2025), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3712005

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Claire M Goodman. 1987. The Delphi technique: a critique.Journal of advanced nursing12, 6 (1987), 729–734

    work page 1987

  32. [32]

    Muhammad Hamza, Dominik Siemon, Muhammad Azeem Akbar, and Tahsinur Rahman. 2024. Human-AI Collaboration in Software Engineering: Lessons Learned from a Hands-On Workshop. InProceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE Inter- national Workshop on Software-Intensive Business(Lisbon, Portugal)(IWSiB ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 7–14. doi:...

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Kendrick Hang, Tyler Schrock, Tina J Ostrander, Roseann Berg, Tyler Menezes, and Kevin Wang. 2024. Industry Mentoring and Internship Experiences at a Community College Baccalaureate Program in Software Development. InPro- ceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Md Asraful Haque. 2025. Llms: A game-changer for software engineers?Bench- Council Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations(2025), 100204

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. InAdvances in psy- chology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    work page 1988

  36. [36]

    Felicity Hasson, Sinead Keeney, and Hugh McKenna. 2000. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique.Journal of advanced nursing32, 4 (2000), 1008– 1015

    work page 2000

  37. [37]

    Dan Heaton, Jérémie Clos, Elena Nichele, and Joel E. Fischer. 2023. The Social Impact of Decision-Making Algorithms: Reviewing the Influence of Agency, Responsibility and Accountability on Trust and Blame. InProceedings of the First International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems (TAS ’23). ACM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 1–11. doi:10.1145/35975...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597512.3599706 2023

  38. [38]

    Jeffrey Heer. 2019. Agency plus automation: Designing artificial intelligence into interactive systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 6 (2019), 1844–1850. doi:10.1073/pnas.1807184115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1807184115 2019

  39. [39]

    Amber Horvath, Andrew Macvean, and Brad A Myers. 2024. Meta-manager: A tool for collecting and exploring meta information about code. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Firuza Huseynova. 2024. Addressing Deskilling as a Result of Human-AI Aug- mentation in the Workplace. (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Steve Inskeep and Nia Dumas. 2025. AI could widen the wealth gap and wipe out entry-level jobs, expert says.NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/05/nx- s1-5485286/ai-jobs-economy-wealth-gap Published August 5, 2025. Retrieved September 4, 2025

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Trevor Laurence Jockims. 2025. AI is not just ending entry-level jobs. It’s the end of the career ladder as we know it.CNBC(Sept. 7 2025). https://www.cnbc.com/ 2025/09/07/ai-entry-level-jobs-hiring-careers.html

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Jan Ole Johanssen, Fabien Patrick Viertel, Bernd Bruegge, and Kurt Schneider

    work page

  44. [44]

    InManaged Software Evolution

    Tacit knowledge in software evolution. InManaged Software Evolution. Springer International Publishing Cham, 77–105

    work page

  45. [45]

    Hyunjin Kang and Chen Lou. 2022. AI agency vs. human agency: understanding human–AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27, 5 (2022), 1–13. doi:10.1093/ jcmc/zmac014

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    In: 2021 IEEE International Con- ference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp

    Junaed Younus Khan, Md. Tawkat Islam Khondaker, Gias Uddin, and Anindya Iqbal. 2021. Automatic Detection of Five API Documentation Smells: Practition- ers’ Perspectives . In2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 318–329. doi:10.1109/SANER50967.2021.00037

    work page doi:10.1109/saner50967.2021.00037 2021

  47. [47]

    Sunnie SY Kim, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Q Vera Liao, Tania Lombrozo, and Olga Russakovsky. 2025. Fostering appropriate reliance on large language models: The role of explanations, sources, and inconsistencies. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Kirova, Cyril S

    Vassilka D. Kirova, Cyril S. Ku, Joseph R. Laracy, and Thomas J. Marlowe. 2024. Software Engineering Education Must Adapt and Evolve for an LLM Environ- ment. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1(Portland, OR, USA)(SIGCSE 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 666–672. doi:10.1145/362...

    work page doi:10.1145/3626252.3630927 2024

  49. [49]

    Amy J Ko and Katie Davis. 2017. Computing mentorship in a software boomtown: Relationships to adolescent interest and beliefs. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on international computing education research. 236–244

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    If the machine is as good as me, then what use am I?

    Charlotte Kobiella, Yarhy Said Flores López, Franz Waltenberger, Fiona Draxler, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2024. " If the machine is as good as me, then what use am I?"–How the use of ChatGPT changes young professionals’ perception of productivity and accomplishment. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Jason Koebler. 2025. Meta Is Going to Let Job Candidates Use AI During Coding Tests.WIRED(29 July 2025). https://www.wired.com/story/meta-ai-coding- interviews/ Published in partnership with 404 Media

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Aayush Kumar, Yasharth Bajpai, Sumit Gulwani, Gustavo Soares, and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2025. Sharp Tools: How Developers Wield Agentic AI in Real Software Engineering Tasks.arXiv e-prints(2025), arXiv–2506

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Stefano Lambiase, Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2024. Motivations, Challenges, Best Practices, and Benefits for Bots and Conversational Agents in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature Review.Comput. Surveys 57, 4, Article 93 (Dec. 2024), 93:1–93:37 pages. doi:10.1145/3704806

    work page doi:10.1145/3704806 2024

  54. [54]

    Tomas Lawton, Kazjon Grace, and Francisco Ibarrola. 2023. When is a Tool a Tool? User Perceptions of System Agency in Human–AI Co-Creative Drawing. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). ACM, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. doi:10.1145/3563657.3595977

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3595977 2023

  55. [55]

    Hao-Ping Lee, Advait Sarkar, Lev Tankelevitch, Ian Drosos, Sean Rintel, Richard Banks, and Nicholas Wilson. 2025. The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Stacey Levine and Anu G Bourgeois. 2022. Improving Student Success Through Early Industry Mentorship. InProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1357–1357

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Hao Li, Haoxiang Zhang, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2025. The Rise of AI Teammates in Software Engineering (SE) 3.0: How Autonomous Coding Agents Are Reshaping Software Engineering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15003(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    2025.To- wards the Versioning of LLM-Agent-Based Software

    Chengwei Liu, Lyuye Zhang, Xiufeng Xu, Wenbo Guo, and Yang Liu. 2025.To- wards the Versioning of LLM-Agent-Based Software. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1619–1622. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696630. 3728714

    work page doi:10.1145/3696630 2025

  59. [59]

    Lyu, Baishakhi Ray, Abhik Roychoudhury, Shin Hwei Tan, and Patana- mon Thongtanunam

    Michael R. Lyu, Baishakhi Ray, Abhik Roychoudhury, Shin Hwei Tan, and Patana- mon Thongtanunam. 2025. Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyond.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 5, 18 Article 140 (May 2025), 33 pages. doi:10.1145/3708519 CC BY 4.0

    work page doi:10.1145/3708519 2025

  60. [60]

    Thomas Mahatody, Mouldi Sagar, and Christophe Kolski. 2010. State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions.Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction26, 8 (2010), 741–785

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    Antonio Mastropaolo, Camilo Escobar-Velásquez, and Mario Linares-Vásquez

    work page

  62. [62]

    From Triumph to Uncertainty: The Journey of Software Engineering in the AI Era.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.34, 5, Article 131 (May 2025), 34 pages. doi:10.1145/3709360

    work page doi:10.1145/3709360 2025

  63. [63]

    Fairuz Nawer Meem and Brittany Johnson. 2025. Investigating the Impact of AI-Assisted Tools on Software Practitioner Well-Being. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK ’25 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3707640.3731915

    work page doi:10.1145/3707640.3731915 2025

  64. [64]

    Reed Milewicz, Gustavo Pinto, and Paige Rodeghero. 2019. Characterizing the roles of contributors in open-source scientific software projects. In2019 IEEE/ACM 16th international conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 421– 432

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    Laura G Militello and Robert JB Hutton. 1998. Applied cognitive task analy- sis (ACTA): a practitioner’s toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. Ergonomics41, 11 (1998), 1618–1641

    work page 1998

  66. [66]

    Emmanuel Samuel Mtsweni and Nehemiah Maveterra. 2018. Issues affecting application of tacit knowledge within software development project.Procedia computer science138 (2018), 843–850

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Daye Nam, Andrew Macvean, Vincent Hellendoorn, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Brad Myers. 2024. Using an llm to help with code understanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1–13

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Peter Naur. 1985. Programming as theory building.Microprocessing and Micro- programming15, 5 (1985), 253–261. doi:10.1016/0165-6074(85)90032-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0165-6074(85)90032-8 1985

  69. [69]

    OpenAI. 2025. AGENTS.md: A Simple, Open Format for Guiding Coding Agents. https://agents.md/ Accessed: 2025-09-06

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    OpenAI. 2025. Introducing Study Mode in ChatGPT. https://openai.com/index/ chatgpt-study-mode/ Accessed: 2025-09-06

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Marine Pagliari, Valérian Chambon, and Bruno Berberian. 2022. What is new with Artificial Intelligence? Human–agent interactions through the lens of social agency.Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022), 954444. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954444

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954444 2022

  72. [72]

    Xin Peng, Chong Wang, Mingwei Liu, Yiling Lou, and Yijian Wu. 2025. Code digital twin: Empowering llms with tacit knowledge for complex software main- tenance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07967(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Mauro Pezzè, Silvia Abrahão, Birgit Penzenstadler, Denys Poshyvanyk, Abhik Roychoudhury, and Tao Yue. 2025. A 2030 Roadmap for Software Engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 5, Article 118 (5 2025), 55 pages. doi:10.1145/3731559

    work page doi:10.1145/3731559 2025

  74. [74]

    Gustavo Pinto, Cleidson De Souza, Thayssa Rocha, Igor Steinmacher, Alberto Souza, and Edward Monteiro. 2024. Developer Experiences with a Contextualized AI Coding Assistant: Usability, Expectations, and Outcomes. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 3rd International Conference on AI Engineering - Software Engineering for AI(Lisbon, Portugal)(CAIN ’24). Associat...

    work page doi:10.1145/3644815.3644949 2024

  75. [75]

    Partha Pratim Ray. 2025. A Review on Vibe Coding: Fundamentals, State-of-the- art, Challenges and Future Directions. Manuscript. Preprint

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Gilberto Recupito, Fabiano Pecorelli, Gemma Catolino, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Davide Taibi, Dario Di Nucci, and Fabio Palomba. 2024. Technical debt in AI- enabled systems: On the prevalence, severity, impact, and management strategies for code and architecture.Journal of Systems and Software216 (2024), 112151

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Safiya Richardson, Rebecca Mishuris, Alexander O’Connell, David Feldstein, Rachel Hess, Paul Smith, Lauren McCullagh, Thomas McGinn, and Devin Mann

    work page

  78. [78]

    Think aloud

    “Think aloud” and “Near live” usability testing of two complex clinical decision support tools.International journal of medical informatics106 (2017), 1–8

    work page 2017

  79. [79]

    Nimisha Roy, Oleksandr Horielko, and Olufisayo Omojokun. 2025. Benchmarking of Generative AI Tools in Software Engineering Education: Formative Insights for Curriculum Integration. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Inter- national Computing Education Research V. 2. 3–3

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Daniel Russo. 2024. Navigating the Complexity of Generative AI Adoption in Soft- ware Engineering.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 33, 5, Article 135 (June 2024), 50 pages. doi:10.1145/3652154

    work page doi:10.1145/3652154 2024

Showing first 80 references.