Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals that professional developers prioritize control over AI agents rather than full delegation, leveraging their expertise to maintain software quality while using agents as collaborative tools. The findings highlight the critical role of human judgment in task selection and interface design for future agentic workflows.
Sources coveringarXiv, Latent Space, itbusinessnet.com, SiliconANGLE
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2512.14012v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rise of AI agents is transforming how software can be built. The promise of agents is that developers might write code quicker, delegate multiple tasks to different agents, and even write a full piece of software purely out of natural language. In reality, what roles agents play in professional software development remains in question. This paper investigates how experienced developers use agents in building software, including their motivations, strategies, task suitability, and sentiments. Through field observations (N=13) and qualitative surveys (N=99), we find that while experienced developers value agents as a productivity boost, they retain their agency in software design and implementation out of insistence on fundamental software quality attributes, employing strategies for controlling agent behavior leveraging their expertise. In addition, experienced developers enjoy working with agents as source of collaboration rather than complete delegation given their judgment for task suitability. Our results shed light on the value of software development best practices in effective use of agents, suggest the kinds of tasks for which agents may be suitable, and point towards future opportunities for better agentic interfaces and agentic use guidelines.

Abstract:The rise of AI agents is transforming how software can be built. The promise of agents is that developers might write code quicker, delegate multiple tasks to different agents, and even write a full piece of software purely out of natural language. In reality, what roles agents play in professional software development remains in question. This paper investigates how experienced developers use agents in building software, including their motivations, strategies, task suitability, and sentiments. Through field observations (N=13) and qualitative surveys (N=99), we find that while experienced developers value agents as a productivity boost, they retain their agency in software design and implementation out of insistence on fundamental software quality attributes, employing strategies for controlling agent behavior leveraging their expertise. In addition, experienced developers enjoy working with agents as source of collaboration rather than complete delegation given their judgment for task suitability. Our results shed light on the value of software development best practices in effective use of agents, suggest the kinds of tasks for which agents may be suitable, and point towards future opportunities for better agentic interfaces and agentic use guidelines.

Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2512.14012 [cs.SE]

(or arXiv:2512.14012v2 [cs.SE] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.14012 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 281 words

Related coverage