The Semi-Executable Stack: Agentic Software Engineering and the Expanding Scope of SE

TL;DR

The paper introduces the Semi-Executable Stack model to understand the expanding scope of software engineering beyond code, emphasizing semi-executable artifacts and organizational routines influenced by AI and human interpretation.

Contribution

It presents the Semi-Executable Stack as a diagnostic framework for analyzing the broader scope of software engineering involving semi-executable artifacts and societal considerations.

Findings

Introduces the Semi-Executable Stack model with six diagnostic rings.

Reframes objections to AI in software engineering as engineering targets.

Provides a heuristic for legacy process preservation versus redesign.

Abstract

AI-based systems, currently driven largely by LLMs and tool-using agentic harnesses, are increasingly discussed as a possible threat to software engineering. Foundation models get stronger, agents can plan and act across multiple steps, and tasks such as scaffolding, routine test generation, straightforward bug fixing, and small integration work look more exposed than they did only a few years ago. The result is visible unease not only among students and junior developers, but also among experienced practitioners who worry that hard-won expertise may lose value. This paper argues for a different reading. The important shift is not that software engineering loses relevance. It is that the thing being engineered expands beyond executable code to semi-executable artifacts; combinations of natural language, tools, workflows, control mechanisms, and organizational routines whose enactment depends on human or probabilistic interpretation rather than deterministic execution. The Semi-Executable Stack is introduced as a six-ring diagnostic reference model for reasoning about that expansion, spanning executable artifacts, instructional artifacts, orchestrated execution, controls, operating logic, and societal and institutional fit. The model helps locate where a contribution, bottleneck, or organizational transition primarily sits, and which adjacent rings it depends on. The paper develops the argument through three worked cases, reframes familiar objections as engineering targets rather than reasons to dismiss the transition, and closes with a preserve-versus-purify heuristic for deciding which legacy software engineering processes, controls, and coordination routines should be kept and which should be simplified or redesigned. This paper is a conceptual keynote companion: diagnostic and agenda-setting rather than empirical.