arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2608.30572

Practical Implementation Report on Introducing Spec-Driven Development Using AI Agents in Software Development PBL

Abstract

In recent years, autonomous AI agents such as GitHub Copilot and Claude Code have been rapidly gaining popularity. This study reports on the practical implementation of Spec-Driven Development, a software development methodology premised on AI agents, within a Software Development Project-Based Learning (SDPBL) course for third-year undergraduate students. We defined a workflow consisting of four phases, namely investigation, planning, implementation, and review. We also established an environment tailored for the SDPBL course where AI agents generate documentation and code during each phase. We analyzed the results from three perspectives, namely students' subjective AI usage, implementation throughput, and code comprehension. The analysis reveals that AI usage patterns varied across development phases and teams. Moreover, while AI agent utilization increased implementation throughput, it also tended to encourage students to proceed with development without fully understanding the code. This study demonstrates that regular verification of code comprehension by instructors and appropriate feedback are essential for maintaining educational effectiveness when introducing SDD into SDPBL.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Hidetake Tanaka, Hiroshi Igaki, Kazumasa Shimari, Kiyoshi Honda, Naoki Fukuyasu. 2026-08-31. Practical Implementation Report on Introducing Spec-Driven Development Using AI Agents in Software Development PBL. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30572

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE