From Adoption to Deployment: A Qualitative Study on AI Integration in Software Development Practice
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as AI components in modern software systems introduces distinct security risks to the software supply chain. While many considerations and safety mechanisms are in place for components of the traditional software supply chain, the recent rapid adoption of AI components and platforms has overlooked these hard learned lessons. Selecting and integrating AI models without clear guidance on how these choices affect system security may leave applications vulnerable to threats, such as malicious components, data leakage, and unintended behavior. The goal of this study is to understand practitioners' decision making process and security considerations in selecting and integrating AI components through an exploratory semi-structured interview study. Toward this goal, we conducted semistructured interviews with 22 software developers, architects, and AI practitioners across diverse organizations about how they integrate AI components into their software. Our analysis finds that practitioners' model selection is predominantly driven by functional criteria, including performance, accuracy, cost, and specific features, e.g., tool calling or multimodal support, while security is rarely considered as an evaluation criterion. We observe a consistent lack of security concern throughout the AI component integration process, with established software supply chain lessons overlooked or ignored. The industry is repeating the historically costly mistakes of early software dependency management, prioritizing rapid reuse and availability over security and provenance. We distill our findings into actionable recommendations for AI adopters, model providers, and researchers, advocating for a proactive, security-by-design approach that integrates security evaluation into component selection and sustains it throughout the software development lifecycle.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 57 of its 118 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2026.
Builds on
57 of 118 references.
References · 57
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,384
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
- 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 476
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 406
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agentscited by 341
- 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 325
- 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 314
- 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 236
- 2024Jailbreak Attacks and Defenses Against Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 215
- 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 186
38 more
- 2024Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 179
- 2023Large Language Models for Code: Security Hardening and Adversarial Testingcited by 149
- 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Surveycited by 145
- 2024Attacks, Defenses and Evaluations for LLM Conversation Safety: A Surveycited by 124
- 2024AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathwayscited by 122
- 2024Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Taskscited by 102
- 2023The Programmer's Assistant: Conversational Interaction with a Large Language Model for Software Developmentcited by 95
- 2025A Survey on Trustworthy LLM Agents: Threats and Countermeasurescited by 93
- 2024A New Era in LLM Security: Exploring Security Concerns in Real-World LLM-based Systemscited by 74
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Taskscited by 69
- 2024We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMscited by 61
- 2023Computing Education in the Era of Generative AIcited by 50
- 2024PentestAgent: Incorporating LLM Agents to Automated Penetration Testingcited by 46
- 2024Using AI-Based Coding Assistants in Practice: State of Affairs, Perceptions, and Ways Forwardcited by 44
- 2024Operationalizing a Threat Model for Red-Teaming Large Language Models (LLMs)cited by 44
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insightscited by 44
- 2019Small World with High Risks: A Study of Security Threats in the npm Ecosystemcited by 36
- 2023On the Design of AI-powered Code Assistants for Notebookscited by 28
- 2024Using AI Assistants in Software Development: A Qualitative Study on Security Practices and Concernscited by 27
- 2024Large Language Model Supply Chain: A Research Agendacited by 23
- 2024How secure is AI-generated Code: A Large-Scale Comparison of Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2023An Empirical Study of Malicious Code In PyPI Ecosystemcited by 18
- 2024PromSec: Prompt Optimization for Secure Generation of Functional Source Code with Large Language Models (LLMs)cited by 17
- 2023User Experience Design Professionals' Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligencecited by 16
- 2024LLM Security Guard for Codecited by 15
- 2025Give LLMs a Security Course: Securing Retrieval-Augmented Code Generation via Knowledge Injectioncited by 15
- 2020An Empirical Study of Usages, Updates and Risks of Third-Party Libraries in Java Projectscited by 11
- 2024Towards More Trustworthy and Interpretable LLMs for Code through Syntax-Grounded Explanationscited by 10
- 2020Selecting third-party libraries: The practitioners' perspectivecited by 9
- 2024Large Language Model Supply Chain: Open Problems From the Security Perspectivecited by 9
- 2024When Fuzzing Meets LLMs: Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 8
- 2025LLMs' Reshaping of People, Processes, Products, and Society in Software Development: A Comprehensive Exploration with Early Adopterscited by 8
- 2018Vulnerable Open Source Dependencies: Counting Those That Mattercited by 7
- 2022Practical Automated Detection of Malicious npm Packagescited by 7
- 2025Code Change Intention, Development Artifact and History Vulnerability: Putting Them Together for Vulnerability Fix Detection by LLMcited by 6
- 2019An Empirical Analysis of the Python Package Index (PyPI)cited by 5
- 2023On the Effect of Transitivity and Granularity on Vulnerability Propagation in the Maven Ecosystemcited by 4
- 2024Towards Robust Detection of Open Source Software Supply Chain Poisoning Attacks in Industry Environmentscited by 4
50 most cited of 57 All 57 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Bridging AI and Software Security: A Comparative Vulnerability Assessment of LLM Agent Deployment Paradigms
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering
- 2026Agentic AI in Industry: Adoption Level and Deployment Barriers
- 2026Risk Architecture for AI-Native Engineering Teams: An Organizational Framework for Agentic System Governance
- 2025Interacting with AI Reasoning Models: Harnessing "Thoughts" for AI-Driven Software Engineering
- 2026Taxonomy-Driven Analysis of Open-Source AI Risk Mitigation Tools
- 2026LLM-Based Agents for Software and Systems Security: Approaches, Applications, and Assessment
- 2025Threat Modeling for AI: The Case for an Asset-Centric Approach