From Code-Centric to Intent-Centric Software Engineering: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Generative AI, Agentic Systems, and Engineering Accountability
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and agentic systems are moving software engineering from code-centric production toward intent-centric human-agent work in which natural language, repository context, tools, tests, and governance shape delivery. Prior studies examine code generation, AI pair programming, and software engineering agents, but less is known about how public technical discourse and peer-reviewed evidence together frame the profession's near-term transition. This study addresses that gap through a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) dominant and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) informed public-discourse and document analysis. The corpus combines peer-reviewed software engineering and AI literature, technical benchmarks, public talks and interviews, essays, product-facing technical announcements, and X-originated discourse from prominent AI and software engineering voices. Sources were organized through a corpus register, codebook, coding matrix, theme-to-source traceability table, DOI/reference audit, and reproducibility protocol. The analysis shows that GenAI lowers the cost of producing plausible code while increasing the importance of intent specification, context curation, architecture knowledge, verification, security, provenance, governance, and accountable human judgment. The findings indicate that software engineering is becoming less about isolated code authorship and more about supervising, validating, and governing socio-technical systems of humans, agents, tools, and evidence gates. This matters because speed-focused adoption can accumulate hidden technical debt and accountability gaps, whereas bounded autonomy can preserve quality, security, maintainability, and trust.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2026.
Builds on
10 of 42 references.
References · 10
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
- 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 274
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 181
- 2024Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyondcited by 36
- 2023Exploring the Problems, their Causes and Solutions of AI Pair Programming: A Study on GitHub and Stack Overflowcited by 11
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Human-AI Collaboration and the Transformation of Software Engineering Work
- 2025Generative AI and the Transformation of Software Development Practices
- 2026Rethinking Software Engineering for Agentic AI Systems
- 2026Cheap Code, Costly Judgment: A Case Study on Governable Agentic Software Engineering
- 2026The Rise of AI-Native Software Engineering: Implications for Practice, Education, and the Future Workforce
- 2026From Determinism to Delegation: AI-Native Software Engineering and the Evolution of the Agentic Engineer
- 2025From Correctness to Collaboration: Toward a Human-Centered Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Behavior in Software Engineering
- 2026Agentic Agile-V: From Vibe Coding to Verified Engineering in Software and Hardware Development