mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

"I'm Not Reading All of That": Understanding Software Engineers' Level of Cognitive Engagement with Agentic Coding Assistants

arXiv 2603.14225 ↗First posted 15 Mar 2026cs.HC cs.AI cs.SEcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Over-reliance on AI systems can undermine users' critical thinking and promote complacency, a risk intensified by the emergence of agentic AI systems that operate with minimal human involvement. In software engineering, agentic coding assistants (ACAs) are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday development workflows. Since software engineers (SEs) create systems deployed across diverse and high-stakes real-world contexts, these assistants must function not merely as autonomous task performers but as Tools for Thought that actively support human reasoning and sensemaking. We conducted a formative study examining software engineers' cognitive engagement and sensemaking processes when working with an ACA. Our findings reveal that cognitive engagement consistently declines as tasks progress, and that current ACA designs provide limited affordances for reflection, verification, and meaning-making. Based on these findings, we identify concrete design opportunities leveraging richer interaction modalities and cognitive-forcing mechanisms to sustain engagement and promote deeper thinking in AI-assisted programming.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Mar 2026.

Builds on

5 of 50 references.

References · 5

  1. 2020You Autocomplete Me: Poisoning Vulnerabilities in Neural Code Completioncited by 112
  2. 2018Mapping Language to Code in Programmatic Contextcited by 104
  3. 2023TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion Modelscited by 47
  4. 2020On Learning Meaningful Assert Statements for Unit Test Casescited by 42
  5. 2026An Experimental Comparison of Cognitive Forcing Functions for Execution Plans in AI-Assisted Writing: Effects On Trust, Overreliance, and Perceived Critical Thinkingcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows
  2. 2026Humans are Missing from AI Coding Agent Research
  3. 2025From Correctness to Collaboration: Toward a Human-Centered Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Behavior in Software Engineering
  4. 2025Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025
  5. 2026From Junior to Senior: Allocating Agency and Navigating Professional Growth in Agentic AI-Mediated Software Engineering
  6. 2026Agents That Teach: Towards Designing Incidental Learning Back into AI-Assisted Software Development
  7. 2026Human-AI Collaboration and the Transformation of Software Engineering Work
  8. 2026AgentForge: An Immersive Role-Playing Platform for Learning Agentic Software Engineering