Agent-Callable Feature Coverage: Measuring Software Readiness for AI Agents
Zedong Peng
Sep 2026
Human-computer Interaction
Abstract
AI agents already operate graphical software through screenshot-based computer use, so the pressing question is not whether agents can operate software, but how well software supports them through structured, controllable channels. We formalize this need as the GUI-API parity principle: every capability available to human users through a graphical interface should also be accessible to agents through a structured, callable interface with appropriate safety metadata. To operationalize this principle, we introduce two contributions. First, Agent-Callable Feature Coverage (ACFC), a product-level readiness metric quantifying how much of a system's human-facing functionality agents can access and use. Second, Agent Readiness Conformance (ARC), a framework that scores each capability on three axes: Accessibility (can an agent call it), Discoverability (can an agent find and understand it), and Controllability (can an agent use it safely), each on a 0-3 scale, yielding a composite 0-9 readiness score. Drawing on the Richardson Maturity Model, ARC provides finer-grained assessment than binary coverage. In an empirical study of 30 software systems across five categories, ARC-based ACFC scores are substantially lower than Accessibility-only metrics would suggest: most systems achieve moderate API coverage but lag on agent-oriented documentation and safety governance. In a controlled testbed of ten deployed systems, API-only agents completed 56 of 58 tasks whose target capabilities were exposed through structured interfaces; a documentation ablation reduced this to 50 of 58, showing that Discoverability affects execution even among accessible capabilities, while inaccessible capabilities, included as negative controls, were not solved. These findings hold across three agent models, including Google's open-weights Gemma4 run locally.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 7, 2026
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.