Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.29869

TagDebt: A Bot to Support Technical Debt Management

João Paulo Biazotto·Daniel Feitosa·Paris Avgeriou·Elisa Yumi Nakagawa
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Context: Technical debt (TD) is a widely studied metaphor that helps to explain how sub-optimal decisions that can harm software maintainability over time. Although incurring TD is not intrinsically bad, tracking and managing TD are crucial to avoid its negative effects. Hence, researchers and practitioners have proposed and developed diverse approaches and tools for managing TD. However, we are still lacking specialized tools for technical debt management (TDM), specifically ones that can be easily integrated into existing development workflows. Objective: We present and evaluate TagDebt, a bot that can be integrated within GitHub repositories and automatically assign labels to issues (i.e., SATD or non-SATD). TagDebt helps in the identification of TD (i.e., by looking for self-admitted technical debt (SATD)), leading to more efficient TDM. Methods: We carried out a Design Science Research study to design and implement TagDebt. For its evaluation, we executed a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) study through interviews with 16 practitioners, to check the bot's usefulness, ease of use, and contextual factors that might impact the bot's usage (such as team size and practitioners' roles). Results: Overall, practitioners found that TagDebt is useful, especially for organizing issues and reducing manual work. Furthermore, they pointed out that the bot is overall easy to use, and its documentation is clear. The analysis also revealed that contextual factors, such as team and codebase size, impact the decision to adopt TagDebt. Finally, several improvements were suggested, such as including features to check and update the source code. Conclusion: TagDebt is a proof-of-concept for the development and usage of more specialized tools for TDM. It helps to make TD visible without disrupting existing workflows and help practitioners avoid the risks of unmanaged TD.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

João Paulo Biazotto, Daniel Feitosa, Paris Avgeriou, Elisa Yumi Nakagawa. 2026-05-28. TagDebt: A Bot to Support Technical Debt Management. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29869

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗