arXiv preprint ·
When Code Gets Cheap, Evaluation Gets Scarce: An Experience Report on AI-Assisted Agile Software Engineering
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Coding assistants are widely reported to speed up code production; most accounts stop there. We report the end-to-end construction and deployment of a compliance-critical, human-in-the-loop exam-grading system, built by a single developer who wrote no code by hand, protected by a gated process from stakeholder persona to audited behavior. The initial system was built in three working days and could grade a real cohort. We draw one claim from this experience: AI changes software engineering less by making programming faster than by changing what is scarce. Writing code becomes abundant. Reliable evaluation-knowing whether a result is correct and meets the actual need-remains necessary at every iteration and becomes the binding constraint. Engineering judgment remains a second scarcity. Several defects passed the test suite: they sat at the boundaries the tests had mocked, the browser and the language-model API, or appeared only in real use. Deployment exposed assumptions that local tests had missed. Moreover, an AI assistant acting across many steps bypassed process checkpoints until we made them enforceable gates. All of this was observed in a triple union: the developer was also the end user and domain expert, making expert judgment immediately available and evaluation as cheap as it can be. This favors the iteration gains, which may shrink where evaluation requires additional people or expertise, but makes the case a hard test for evaluation scarcity: evaluation still constrained progress. We draw five lessons: run a gated, traceable construction process; specify what is knowable and discover the rest against a running prototype; validate in the real environment; gate the assistant, not only the work; record decisions with their assumptions and the process state the assistant forgets. A second project showed similar patterns; an independent single-expert case corroborates the shift.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Stale Instruction Files Override the Code in Coding Agents: A One-Sentence Fix
Are LLM-Generated Formal Specifications Faithful to Their Requirements? A Study on Bimodal Formal Specification Generation
Governance-State Corruption in Long-Term Memory for LLM Agents: A Cross-Model Stress Test
CrowdStrike Channel File 291: An Engineering Analysis of a Global Endpoint Outage
From Tokens to Credits to Outcomes: Pricing AI Across Models, Applications, and Cloud Platforms
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.