Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces ASE-26, a structured undergraduate curriculum designed to equip future software engineers with the skills necessary for directing AI agents rather than traditional coding. The curriculum addresses the significant shift in the software engineering landscape, where automation and AI are increasingly taking over coding tasks, leaving a gap in practitioner discipline and skills. Key findings suggest that by focusing on structured education in agentic software engineering, the industry can better prepare graduates to meet the evolving demands of their roles in an AI-driven environment.
The ASE-26 curriculum could redefine how we train the next generation of software engineers to thrive in an AI-dominated landscape.
The work of a professional software engineer has begun to consist, increasingly, of directing agents rather than writing code, and the empirical evidence for the shift is now several years deep. Anthropic's Economic Index puts automation at 79 per cent of Claude Code interactions [2]; Handa and colleagues at Anthropic find AI exposure for Computer Programmer tasks at approximately 75 per cent of the role's distinct activities [3]; Brynjolfsson and colleagues at Stanford's Digital Economy Lab report a 13 per cent relative decline in employment for workers aged 22 to 25 in occupations most exposed to AI [4]. The shift is also unfinished, and the academic literature on agentic software engineering converges on the finding that the missing capability is not better models but structured practitioner discipline. This paper presents ASE-26, a comprehensive undergraduate curriculum for agentic software engineering as a discipline, deposited as a citable reference on Zenodo under CC BY-ND 4.0 [12]. The paper sets out the discipline framing the curriculum rests on, the conceptual contributions it makes (most importantly, the evolutionary spiral as the operational form of the co-evolution of intent and build), the twenty-one-module structure that organises the discipline for teaching, the pedagogical commitments that follow from grading work co-produced with an agent, what graduates leave with, and how the discipline as taught is designed to outlast the specific capabilities of today's models. The position the paper takes is that the practitioner skills the industry currently lacks are precisely the skills the discipline names, and that structured undergraduate curricula in agentic software engineering are the principal mechanism by which the gap closes.