Hao Li

Agentic Software Engineering (SE 3.0) represents a new era where intelligent agents are tasked not with simple code generation, but with achieving complex, goal-oriented SE objectives. To harness these new capabilities while ensuring trustworthiness, we must recognize a fundamental duality within the SE field in the Agentic SE era, comprising two symbiotic modalities: SE for Humans and SE for Agents. This duality demands a radical reimagining of the foundational pillars of SE (actors, processes, tools, and artifacts), which manifest differently in each modality. This new vision of SE requires two distinct, purpose-built workbenches (aka tools) for these two collaborative modalities: the Agent Command Environment (ACE), a command center where humans orchestrate, mentor, and oversee agent teams while managing an inbox of agent-generated events like Merge-Readiness Packs (MRPs) and Consultation Request Packs (CRPs); and the Agent Execution Environment (AEE), a digital workbench where agents not only execute tasks but can proactively invoke human expertise when facing complex trade-offs or ambiguity. This bidirectional partnership, which supports agent-initiated human callbacks and handovers, gives rise to new, structured engineering activities (i.e., processes) that redefine human-AI collaboration, elevating the practice from agentic coding to true agentic software engineering. This paper presents the Structured Agentic Software Engineering (SASE) vision, outlining several of the foundational pillars for the future of SE. The paper culminates in a research roadmap that identifies a few key challenges and opportunities while briefly discussing the resulting impact of this future on SE education. Our goal is not to offer a definitive solution, but to provide a conceptual scaffold with structured vocabulary to catalyze a community-wide dialogue, pushing the SE community to think beyond its classic, human-centric tenets toward a disciplined, scalable, and trustworthy agentic future.

Agentic coding tools receive goals written in natural language, break them down into specific tasks, and write or execute code with minimal human intervention. Central to this process are agent context files (e.g., AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md) that provide persistent, project-level instructions. In this article, we conduct the first large-scale empirical study of 2,303 agent context files from 1,925 repositories to characterize their structure, maintenance, and content. We find that these files are not static documentation but complex, difficult-to-read artifacts that evolve like configuration code through frequent, small additions. Our content analysis of 16 instruction types shows that developers prioritize functional context, such as test procedures (75.9%), implementation details (70.8%), and architecture (68.1%). We also identify a significant gap: non-functional requirements such as security (14.8%) and performance (14.5%) are rarely specified. These findings indicate that while developers use context files to make agents functional, they provide few guardrails to ensure that agent-written code is secure or performant, highlighting the need for improved tools and practices.

Agentic coding tools, such as OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor, are changing how software is developed. These AI-powered systems function as autonomous teammates capable of planning and executing complex development tasks. Agents have become active participants in refactoring, a key practice for improving internal code quality without altering observable behavior. Despite their increasing adoption, there is little empirical understanding of how agentic refactoring is used in practice, how it compares to human-driven refactoring, and what impact it has on code quality. To address this empirical gap, we present a large-scale study of AI agent-generated refactorings in real-world open-source Java projects, analyzing 51,412 refactoring instances across 12,256 pull requests and 14,998 commits based on the AIDev dataset. Our empirical analysis shows that refactoring is a common and intentional activity in this development paradigm, with agents explicitly targeting refactoring in 26.1% of commits. The subsequent analyses of refactoring types, purposes, and code quality focus on the 3,907 commits (32,611 instances) with explicit refactoring intent. Analysis of refactoring types reveals that high-level refactorings form the largest category overall. However, agentic refactoring contains a slightly larger share of lowlevel, consistency-oriented edits than human refactoring (27.6% vs. 24.4%), and its two most frequent operations are Rename Variable (7.6%) and Change Variable Type (6.8%). Additionally, the stated motivations behind agentic refactoring focus overwhelmingly on internal quality concerns (with 52.5% in maintainability and 28.1% in readability), although the measured metric improvements from these frequently occurring low-level refactorings remain limited. Furthermore, quantitative evaluation of code quality metrics shows that agentic refactoring yields small but statistically significant improvements in structural metrics, particularly for medium-level changes, reducing class size and complexity.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) introduces a standard specification that defines how Foundation Model (FM)-based agents should interact with external systems by invoking tools. However, to understand a tool’s purpose and features, FMs rely on natural-language tool descriptions, making these descriptions a critical component in guiding FMs to select the optimal tool for a given (sub)task and to pass the right arguments to the tool. While defects or smells in these descriptions can misguide FM-based agents, their prevalence and consequences in the MCP ecosystem remain unclear. Hence, we examine 856 tools spread across 103 MCP servers empirically, assess their description quality, and their impact on agent performance. We identify six components of tool descriptions from the literature, develop a scoring rubric utilizing these components, and then formalize tool description smells based on this rubric. By operationalizing this rubric through an FM-based scanner, we find that 97.1% of the analyzed tool descriptions contain at least one smell, with 56% failing to state their purpose clearly. While augmenting these descriptions for all components improves task success rates by a median of 5.85 percentage points and improves partial goal completion by 15.12%, it also increases the number of execution steps by 67.46% and regresses performance in 16.67% of cases. These results indicate that achieving performance gains is not straightforward; while execution cost can act as a trade-off, execution context can also impact. Furthermore, component ablations show that compact variants of different component combinations often preserve behavioral reliability while reducing unnecessary token overhead, enabling more efficient use of the FM context window and lower execution costs.

Heterogeneous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) swarms consist of dozens to hundreds of drones with different roles and varying hardware and software requirements collaborating towards a shared mission. While traditional approaches for synchronized software updates assume swarms to be unstructured and homogeneous, the heterogeneous nature of modern swarms and the emerging need of drones to update their deep learning (perception) models with new objectives or data as a mission unfolds, has made efficient software update methods crucial for swarms to adapt to dynamic environments. To address these challenges, we introduce the SwarmUpdate framework for software updates in heterogeneous UAV swarms, composed of two key components: SwarmSync and SwarmModelPatch. SwarmSync is a hierarchical software update synchronization strategy to distribute a software update to the right subset of drones within a swarm, while SwarmModelPatch is a deep learning model patching method that reduces the size of a (deep learning model) update by only allowing some layers of the model to be updated (freezing the other layers). In this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of SwarmSync through large-scale simulations in the ARGoS swarm simulator, comparing SwarmSync to auction-based (SOUL) and gossip-based rebroadcasting (Gossip) baselines, and SwarmModelPatch to a non-incremental model patching strategy. Our results show that SwarmSync achieves up to 78.3% faster update convergence compared to SOUL, and up to 47.7% faster convergence compared to Gossip, while maintaining reasonable overhead, making it well-suited for large-scale swarm deployments. Furthermore, we observe that freezing seven out of eight layers reduces update size by 73.3%, accelerates update dissemination by 72.2%, and lowers transmission overhead by 74.3%, while incurring a modest 5.1% absolute accuracy loss. More broadly, SwarmModelPatch achieves patch size reductions of up to 99.6% across different model architectures, with accuracy trade-offs that vary by network design, up to 15.9%.

Although Foundation Models (FMs), such as GPT-4, are increasingly used in domains like finance and software engineering, reliance on textual interfaces limits these models’ real-world interaction. To address this, FM providers introduced tool calling—triggering a proliferation of frameworks with distinct tool interfaces. In late 2024, Anthropic introduced the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to standardize this tool ecosystem. With SDK downloads surpassing twenty five million per week and 86% of enterprises using models supporting MCP tools, MCP is rapidly emerging as a de facto industry standard. Despite its adoption, MCP's AI-driven, non-deterministic control flow introduces new risks to sustainability, security, and maintainability, warranting closer examination. Towards this end, we present the first large-scale empirical study of MCP. Using state-of-the-art health metrics and a hybrid analysis pipeline, combining a general-purpose static analysis tool with an MCP-specific scanner, we evaluate 1,899 open-source MCP servers to assess their health, security, and maintainability. Despite MCP servers demonstrating strong health metrics, we identify eight distinct vulnerabilities—only three overlapping with traditional software vulnerabilities. Additionally, 7.2% of servers contain general vulnerabilities and 5.5% exhibit MCP-specific tool poisoning. Regarding maintainability, while 66% exhibit code smells, 14.4% contain nine bug patterns overlapping prior research. These findings highlight the need for MCP-specific vulnerability detection techniques while reaffirming the value of traditional analysis and refactoring practices. Furthermore, we advocate for stronger governance across the MCP ecosystem by incorporating MCP-specific vulnerabilities into standardized vulnerability databases, enabling automated security scanning within MCP registries, and promoting responsible development practices to ensure the long-term safety and sustainability of the MCP ecosystem.

AI coding agents are rapidly transforming software engineering by performing tasks such as feature development, debugging, and testing. Despite their growing impact, the research community lacks a comprehensive dataset capturing how these agents are used in real-world projects. To address this gap, we introduce AIDev, a large-scale dataset focused on agent-authored pull requests (Agentic-PRs) in real-world GitHub repositories. AIDev aggregates 932,791 Agentic-PRs produced by five agents: OpenAI Codex, Devin, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Claude Code. These PRs span 116,211 repositories and involve 72,189 developers. In addition, AIDev includes a curated subset of 33,596 Agentic-PRs from 2,807 repositories with over 100 stars, providing further information such as comments, reviews, commits, and related issues. This dataset offers a foundation for future research on AI adoption, developer productivity, and human-AI collaboration in the new era of software engineering.