A candidate middle-range theory of governance conversion is expressed as a process model explaining how high-velocity agentic implementation becomes governable, and how engineering judgment sustains velocity by converting those failures into durable governance mechanisms.
Abstract
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.
MAGE explains how externalized knowledge, bounded action, independent evaluation, and retained human authority can compose into a governed engineering environment, and proposes tests of when that environment turns commodity intelligence into durable engineering progress.
James C. Davis, Kelechi G. Kalu, Huiyun Peng et al.· 1 citation
Over the past months, the way developers direct agentic AI coding tools has moved up several levels of abstraction, from phrasing prompts to engineering context to configuring the harness around the model. In June 2026, practitioners began to describe a further level called loop engineering: Instead of prompting an agent interactively, developers design systems that prompt agents for them. These systems start agent runs on a schedule or on repository events and stop them when a machine-checkable condition holds. The term spread rapidly, accompanied by bold claims and vocal skepticism, but its adoption in software projects has not been measured. We present an exploratory review of the emerging gray literature, which largely agrees on what a well-engineered loop contains: triggered agent runs bounded by machine-checkable stop conditions, persistent state files, verifier sub-agents, token budgets, and defined points of escalation to humans. From this review, we derive a research agenda for the empirical study of loop engineering in open-source projects, analyze which of its aspects are traceable from repository data, and report an exploratory mining study of 36,710 software repositories. We confirmed the operation of autonomous agent loops in 217 of the 256 repositories our heuristics matched. The repositories commit the configuration around these loops, but almost none commits the state files the discourse prescribes, and the loops'runtime state remains outside version control. We conclude by outlining a planned controlled study of agent autonomy levels and their effect on effort and outcomes.
Jai Lal Lulla, Vahram Nersesyan, Seyedmoein Mohsenimofidi et al.· 0 citations
Traditional software cost estimation models, such as COCOMO II, Function Points, and Story Points, assume that development effort is primarily driven by human labor in design, coding, and testing. Agentic software engineering, where autonomous AI agents perform substantial implementation work and humans focus on planning, specification, and validation, challenges this assumption. New cost dimensions arise: large language model (LLM) token consumption across agent actions, Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) oversight effort, and infrastructure costs for agent orchestration and tooling. These costs are nondeterministic: identical tasks may consume different tokens, follow divergent reasoning paths, and require varying human correction, phenomena absent in traditional development. A new framework is needed to bridge standard sizing metrics with this cost structure. This paper proposes ACEM (Agentic Cost Estimation Model), which decomposes total agentic development cost into three additive dimensions: LLM, HITL, and infrastructure cost. ACEM introduces three constructs for agentic dynamics: the Revision Factor (RF), modeling token overhead from output rejection and retries; the Context Factor (CF), capturing rising token consumption as context accumulates; and the HITL Intensity Score (HIS), a four-level oversight classification scheme. It further maps Use Case Points, Story Points, and Function Points to estimated token consumption, enabling organizations to reuse existing project-scoping data for agentic cost forecasting. ACEM is presented as a fully specified model structure and calibration methodology, with constants left symbolic pending empirical grounding. As an early-stage proposal, it invites the research community to calibrate, test, and extend the model through real project data.
Enterprise software requires specification governance to transform probabilistic AI generation into deterministic, auditable engineering, and the SGRM framework is introduced, which defines four-component specification contracts, constrains stochastic generation via deterministic validation, and integrates generation, verification, and governance into a closed-loop architecture.
This paper is the first to study how SE processes are changing in the development of SE agents and what challenges developers face, and describes a seven-stage workflow and five process shifts, including a move toward evaluation-driven development.
Yunbo Lyu, David Williams, Jieke Shi et al.· 0 citations
A large-scale empirical study of mainstream open-source agent frameworks from an engineering perspective, providing empirical evidence linking framework design choices to engineering risks and highlighting the need for stronger guidance and support in agent framework development.
Yibo Zhai, Junjun Si, Yan Wang et al.· SIGSOFT FSE Companion· 0 citations