Supporting Contextual Conversational Agent-Based Software Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software Development (SD) is remarkably dynamic and is critically dependent on the knowledge acquired by the project’s software developers as the project progresses. Software developers need to understand large amounts of information related to the tasks at hand. This information (context) is often not explicit, as it can be lost in large documentation repositories, a team member’s brain, or beyond their cognitive memory capacity. These contexts include tool features, integration strategies, data structures, code syntax, approaches to tasks, project definitions, and even implicit or tacit contexts, which add significant complexity to the SD process. Current software development practices still lack sufficient techniques using the existing SD execution information and context to provide developers with relevant process guidance, augmenting their capacity to do their job using available applicable information. This paper presents ongoing and future research on an approach to support conversational agent-based knowledge-augmented software development. Developers benefit by receiving recommendations about task-related information and workflows they need to execute. This work advances human-computer interaction patterns in workflow engines, from graphical user interfaces to conversational patterns in software engineering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".