{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "Your coding assistant makes changes that still need substantial repair before merging.", "change": "Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.", "baseline": "The same coding agent, repository snapshot, tools, and token budget.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Correct patches, regression failures, human repair time, and total cost per accepted change.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2610.30307", "title": "The Customer Is the Builder: How AI Coding Agents Are Rewriting the Economics of Software", "summary": "This is a market and economics analysis, not an engineering technique: it examines whether organizations should replace purchased commercial software with functionality built in-house using AI coding agents. Adopting the paper's underlying premise costs engineering time for specification, validation, and ongoing maintenance of self-built tools, plus the reliability risk of early-stage generated code, none of which the paper prices concretely. What can fail: self-built substitutes may not meet acceptable quality or reliability standards, the benchmark extrapolation is not a forecast of real switching behavior, and market indicators currently show purchased software still growing.", "rationale": "The paper offers decision-relevant evidence that coding agents may already justify building narrow internal tools instead of buying, but its self-reported and unvalidated findings support monitoring and small-scale pilots rather than a production adoption decision.", "technique": "Build-versus-buy analysis of AI coding agents", "family": "agentes_de_codigo", "recommendation": "observar", "published": "2026-10-21", "as_of": "2026-10-24", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30307", "independent_implementations": 2, "total_implementations": 3, "stars": 4, "citations": null, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "This is a market and economics analysis, not an engineering technique: it examines whether organizations should replace purchased commercial software with functionality built in-house using AI coding agents. Adopting the paper's underlying premise costs engineering time for specification, validation, and ongoing maintenance of self-built tools, plus the reliability risk of early-stage generated code, none of which the paper prices concretely. What can fail: self-built substitutes may not meet acceptable quality or reliability standards, the benchmark extrapolation is not a forecast of real switching behavior, and market indicators currently show purchased software still growing.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30307", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "The length of benchmark tasks leading agents complete at 50 percent success has doubled roughly every 129 days since 2023; 32 percent of surveyed organizations reported forgoing at least one software purchase because coding agents let them build instead.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30307", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }