A Few Pages of Markdown: Committed AI Configuration and Lower Quality Cost after Coding-Agent Adoption

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

Escaping the Quicksand: A Call to Arms

Computing has been an astonishing success - but the accumulated technical debt exposes us all to huge costs in business and societal risk. For 75 years, we've built systems to prose specifications with test-and-debug development. That works well enough for industry to thrive, but it's an expensive and ineffective feedback loop, and leaves everyone relying on shaky foundations. Now, AI-enabled engineering is amplifying the success by reducing coding costs, but also amplifies the risks, by rapidly increasing technical debt, and by automating detection of the vulnerabilities therein. How can we do better? Research has long pursued mathematical proof of correctness, which, unlike testing, can cover all cases. This too has advanced massively, but it remains hard to apply, both technically and because of a deep-seated cultural disconnect. Instead, we argue for a pragmatic approach to flexible combinations of testing, *specification*, and proof, that provides more effective feedback loops for both AI and human development. Most simply, one can incrementally co-develop executable-as-test-oracle partial specifications alongside conventional prose descriptions, code, and tests. This clarifies design and makes testing much more discriminating. Developers can and should do it today. Or, even better, one can use specifications that support the full gamut of testing, property-based testing, symbolic execution, and proof. This enables a range of intertwined feedback loops, again both for AI and humans, from cheap testing to more expensive proof. However, making it really practical needs *semantics infrastructure*: specifications and tooling for the main programming languages and other abstractions, which we now more-or-less know how to build, but which is not yet in place. We call the community to arms to create and deploy it - to enable a future built on firmer ground.

AI-Generated Smells: An Analysis of Code and Architecture in LLM and Agent-Driven Development

The promise of Large Language Models in automated software engineering is often measured by functional correctness, overlooking the critical issue of long term maintainability. This paper presents a systematic audit of technical debt in AI-generated software, revealing that AI does not eliminate flaws but rather introduces a distinct machine signature of defects. Our multi-scale analysis, spanning single-file algorithmic tasks and complex, agent generated systems, identifies a fundamental Reasoning-Complexity Trade-off: as models become more capable, they generate increasingly bloated and coupled code. This architectural decay is so pronounced that we establish a Volume-Quality Inverse Law, where code volume is a near perfect predictor of structural degradation. Crucially, we demonstrate that neither functional correctness nor detailed prompting mitigates this decay. These findings challenge the current paradigm of prompt-driven generation, reframing the central problem of AI-based software engineering from one of code generation to one of architectural complexity management. We conclude that future progress depends on equipping agents with explicit architectural foresight to ensure the software they build is not just functional, but also maintainable.