Understanding the Impact of AI Code Assistants on Security API Usage: An Empirical Study

AI code assistants are transforming software development, but their implications for software security remain a major concern, particularly in the context of security APIs. These APIs are critical for safeguarding software systems, yet their complexity often leads to incorrect use and serious vulnerabilities. Developing an evidence-based understanding of how AI assistants influence developers' use of these APIs is therefore essential for informing effective mitigation strategies. While a few user studies have examined the broader impact of AI assistants on software vulnerabilities, the use of security APIs remains unexplored from a developer-centered perspective. This study addresses this gap by presenting the first empirical investigation into how AI code assistants affect professional developers' use of security APIs. We conducted a study with 44 developers who completed security API programming tasks with and without GitHub Copilot assistance. Our findings show that, while Copilot improves functional correctness and marginally reduces certain insecure patterns, it does not significantly improve secure API usage. We also found that developers rarely raised security concerns when engaging with Copilot, and many did not recognize that their final implementations remained insecure. Finally, we offer recommendations for enhancing security awareness among developers and propose future research directions to support safer AI-assisted software development.

How Do Practitioners Build SE Agents? Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study

The rise of Software Engineering (SE) agents, i.e., LLM-based agents that can understand large codebases and carry out engineering tasks with limited human intervention, has been marked by rapid advances and adoption, but little is known about how developers build these systems in practice: existing studies mine repositories or examine deployment, but few investigate how SE agents are constructed. Through semi-structured interviews with 20 practitioners from 12 organizations and an online survey of 80 practitioners, this paper is the first to study how SE processes are changing in the development of SE agents and what challenges developers face. We find that as implementation becomes cheaper, bottlenecks shift rather than disappear: long-standing work in requirements, coordination, and deployment becomes more visible, while reviewing generated code and evaluating agent behavior become new and increasingly central forms of work. We characterize a seven-stage workflow and five process shifts, including a move toward evaluation-driven development, in which evaluation is increasingly defined early and steers iteration, and the emergence of specifications as first-class artifacts that teams test and version alongside code. We further identify six challenges that teams face, together with 12 corresponding practices they use or propose to address them, including unreliable evaluation signals, comprehension debt as code outpaces understanding, and behavioral changes introduced by provider-side model updates.

The Perils of Agency: How Developers Perceive, Prioritize, and Address Risks in Agentic AI Products

Agentic AI systems act autonomously, use tools, adapt to context, and operate in complex real-world environments. However, these same characteristics can create or exacerbate product risks. We studied how industry developers (n=35) perceive, prioritize, and address the risks in their agentic AI products. We found that developers' perceptions of risk were closely tied to the qualities that made the product agentic, such as autonomy, tool use, and usage in a real-world context. Developers prioritized product and business risks before considering downstream societal risks like job displacement and end-user privacy. This prioritization also impacted developers' ability and motivation to mitigate agentic risks. Finally, developers lacked mature controls for containing agentic risks, often relying on constraining the same characteristics that make agents useful: e.g., autonomy and goal complexity. These findings reveal a capability vs. risk control tension in agentic AI development: developers need to address risks that emerge from agentic capabilities, yet they currently have limited support for doing so without constraining agentic functionality.

Human oversight of agentic systems in practice: Examining the oversight work, challenges, and heuristics of developers using software agents

Autonomous software agents hold promise to increase developer productivity but make mistakes and exhibit novel failure modes, making human oversight central to successful human-agent collaboration. Existing research on agent oversight is largely conceptual; normative frameworks exist, but how users actually oversee agents is less known. In this paper, we bridge this gap by providing early empirical anchors for the theoretical discourse on agent oversight. Drawing on interviews with 17 experienced developers, we conduct an exploratory inquiry examining what forms of emergent oversight work developers perform, when, and how. We also document the oversight challenges developers face and the strategies they have started using to address them. We found at least four forms of emergent oversight work: a priori control, co-planning, real-time monitoring, and post hoc review. We show that oversight work is not only reactive and retrospective, as portrayed in existing research, but also preventative and proactive. We describe situated oversight challenges (e.g., difficulty reviewing agent-generated code) and outline heuristics developers adopt to address such challenges (e.g., using test results as guarantees for code correctness). We conclude with high-level takeaways, future research directions, implications for the human-centered design of software agents and for software engineering practice, and limitations of our research.