This paper investigates what kinds of configurations experienced developers want in coding assistants, how they prioritize different types of configuration needs, and which interface mechanisms they prefer, and discusses the implications for designing more unified and discoverable configuration surfaces for future coding assistants.
Abstract
AI coding assistants are now widely used in professional development, yet they offer only limited ways for developers to control how they behave. In this paper, we investigate what kinds of configurations experienced developers want in coding assistants, how they prioritize different types of configuration needs, and which interface mechanisms they prefer. We first synthesize product documentation and prior research on trust and personalization to compile a list of 33 configuration options, grouped into four categories: Code suggestions, System & policies, Human-assistant interaction, and Users & their personal context. We then conduct a survey with 56 professional developers and 7 design sessions in which participants arrange configurations into their perfect control board and talk about their needs and experiences in more depth. Developers report strong interest in configurability: 72.6% of usefulness ratings are positive, while only around a third indicate that the corresponding configuration is known to participants in their tools. Demand is particularly high for task-related controls such as minimum confidence thresholds, visibility of suggestion quality, and response length, whereas many persona-related configurations are seen as unnecessary. In this paper, we discuss the implications for designing more unified and discoverable configuration surfaces for future coding assistants.
Enterprise software teams report a frustrating inconsistency: the same AI coding assistants producing compelling results in controlled studies return uneven outcomes in production. The problem is architectural, not technological. A capable AI coding assistant deployed without adequate codebase context, integrated at on...
Rajendar Reddy Sama· East African Journal of Info...· 0 citations
When interacting with large language models (LLMs), users have limited visibility and control over how their personal information is retained, particularly after incorporation into model training. Although some deployed LLMs provide options to opt-out of training, these mechanisms do not offer guarantees about the dele...
With LLMs, creating software tutorials now involves steering the model's output and shaping it into a coherent, accurate learning resource, yet existing LLM tools offer writers little support for this work. By analyzing interviews with technical writers ($N=17$), we identify three requirements for how they assemble and...
VibeJam, a browser-based user study platform for users to collaborate with AI agents to develop websites, and open-source VibeJam to spur extensions and support studies on how coding agents can help users.
Nishant Balepur, Connor Baumler, Valerie Chen et al.· 0 citations
Generative AI tools such as GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and coding agents have rapidly become part of everyday software development, yet little is known about how mainstream open source communities discuss them in practice. This paper presents a longitudinal analysis of generative-AI-related discussions in the Visual Stud...
Panida Rumriankit, Akito Monden, Hiroki Inayoshi et al.· 0 citations
Keeping up with the AI revolution and its application in coding can be challenging, but with guidance from AI and ML expert Dr. Vincent Hall—who holds a PhD in machine learning and has extensive experience in licensed software development—this book helps both new and experienced coders to quickly adopt best practices a...
Vincent Austin Hall· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.