How Do Practitioners Build SE Agents? Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10856v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 17:40:36 GMT
• Title: How Do Practitioners Build SE Agents? Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study
• Abstract summary: This paper is the first to study how Software Engineering processes are changing in the development of SE agents.<n>We characterize a seven-stage workflow and a shift toward evaluation-driven development.<n>We identify six challenges that teams face, together with the practices they adopt to address them.
• Score: 14.012434371282382
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of Software Engineering (SE) agents, i.e., LLM-based agents that can understand large codebases and carry out engineering tasks with limited human intervention, has been marked by rapid advances and adoption, but little is known about how developers build these systems in practice: existing studies mine repositories or examine deployment, but few investigate how SE agents are constructed. Through semi-structured interviews with 20 practitioners from 12 organizations and an online survey of 80 practitioners, this paper is the first to study how SE processes are changing in the development of SE agents and what challenges developers face. We find that as implementation becomes cheaper, bottlenecks shift rather than disappear: long-standing non-coding work such as requirements, coordination, review, and deployment becomes more visible, while reviewing and evaluating agent output becomes new and central. We characterize a seven-stage workflow and a shift toward evaluation-driven development, in which evaluation steers iteration and specifications become versioned artifacts read by both humans and agents. We further identify six challenges that teams face, together with the practices they adopt to address them, including unreliable evaluation signals, comprehension debt as code outpaces understanding, and behavioral changes introduced by provider-side model updates.

Related papers

• Self-Evolving Coding Agents [11.43197414613246]
  Self-evolving coding agents can inspect repositories, invoke tools, execute tests, debug failures, and generate patches.<n>We first define self-evolving coding agents and distinguish them from conventional coding agents and general self-evolving agents.<n>We find that executable feedback, repository-level context, and coding trajectories give software engineering a distinctive role as a natural domain for agent self-evolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T09:43:46Z)
• How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests [5.6795075579540395]
  This study aims to characterize agentic pull requests (PR) in comparison to human generated PRs.<n>We first analyze how differences in merge rates between agentic and human generated PRs vary over time.<n>We then identify the types of development tasks where AI coding agents are predominantly applied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T21:48:28Z)
• AgentX: Towards Agent-Driven Self-Iteration of Industrial Recommender Systems [82.01232437066487]
  AgentX is a production-deployed multi-agent system that restructures this production function.<n>It autonomously generates, implements, evaluates, and learns from recommendation experiments.<n>AgentX orchestrates four tightly coupled stages in a closed loop.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T10:42:28Z)
• How Do Developers Maintain and Evolve Their Agents' Instructions? An Empirical Study [9.708580060106414]
  Agent Context Files (ACFs) have emerged as a practical mechanism to guide agents through structured instructions.<n>This paper plans to investigate the evolution of ACFs and their role in agent-driven development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T00:32:18Z)
• From Question Answering to Task Completion: A Survey on Agent System and Harness Design [67.8241530947325]
  This survey examines LLM-based agents through a model-harness lens.<n>We first clarify the functional definition of agents and the implementation view of an LLM-based agent as a foundation model and an execution harness.<n>We then analyze the limits of model-centric scaling, trace four paradigms of agent engineering, and decompose the execution harness into six coupled runtime responsibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T05:40:16Z)
• From Prompt to Process: a Process Taxonomy and Comparative Assessment of Frameworks Supporting AI Software Development Agents [0.0]
  We focus on the operational frameworks that turn AI capabilities into process.<n>Each attack 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.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T14:49:15Z)
• Code as Agent Harness [107.31925305395957]
  In emerging agentic systems, code is no longer only a target output.<n>Code increasingly serves as an operational substrate for agent reasoning, acting, environment modeling, and execution-based verification.<n>This survey provides a unified roadmap toward executable, verifiable, and stateful AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:03Z)
• Beyond Isolated Tasks: A Framework for Evaluating Coding Agents on Sequential Software Evolution [5.10403054516716]
  Existing datasets evaluate performance on isolated, single pull request (PR) tasks in a stateless manner.<n>We introduce an automated coding task generation framework, which helps generate our dataset SWE-STEPS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T13:44:40Z)
• AgentIF-OneDay: A Task-level Instruction-Following Benchmark for General AI Agents in Daily Scenarios [49.90735676070039]
  The capacity of AI agents to effectively handle tasks of increasing duration and complexity continues to grow.<n>We argue that current evaluations prioritize increasing task difficulty without sufficiently addressing the diversity of agentic tasks.<n>We propose AgentIF-OneDay, aimed at determining whether general users can utilize natural language instructions and AI agents to complete a diverse array of daily tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:49:18Z)
• Beyond Task Completion: An Assessment Framework for Evaluating Agentic AI Systems [0.0]
  Recent advances in agentic AI have shifted the focus from standalone Large Language Models to integrated systems.<n>We propose an end-to-end Agent Assessment Framework with four evaluation pillars encompassing LLMs, Memory, Tools, and Environment.<n>We validate the framework on a representative Autonomous CloudOps use case, where experiments reveal behavioral deviations by conventional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T18:17:40Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey on Benchmarks and Solutions in Software Engineering of LLM-Empowered Agentic System [56.40989626804489]
  This survey provides the first holistic analysis of Large Language Models-powered software engineering.<n>We review over 150 recent papers and propose a taxonomy along two key dimensions: (1) Solutions, categorized into prompt-based, fine-tuning-based, and agent-based paradigms, and (2) Benchmarks, including tasks such as code generation, translation, and repair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T06:56:50Z)
• Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [60.04362496037186]
  We present the first controlled study of developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants.<n>Our results show agents can assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
• Understanding Software Engineering Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study [15.97770416681533]
  Software engineering agents (SWE agents) operate autonomously by interpreting user input and responding to environmental feedback.<n>We present the first systematic study of SWE agent behavior through the lens of execution traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T00:41:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.