Adam Tornhill

Markus Borg, Nadim Hagatulah, Adam Tornhill et al.

We are entering a hybrid era in which human developers and AI coding agents work in the same codebases. While industry practice has long optimized code for human comprehension, it is increasingly important to ensure that LLMs with different capabilities can edit code reliably. In this study, we investigate the concept of ``AI-friendly code'' via LLM-based refactoring on a dataset of 5,000 Python files from competitive programming. We find a meaningful association between CodeHealth, a quality metric calibrated for human comprehension, and semantic preservation after AI refactoring. Our findings confirm that human-friendly code is also more compatible with AI tooling. These results suggest that organizations can use CodeHealth to guide where AI interventions are lower risk and where additional human oversight is warranted. Investing in maintainability not only helps humans; it also prepares for large-scale AI adoption.

Simeon Tverdal, Phu Nguyen, Arda Goknil et al.

Software-intensive organizations need effective ways to identify where maintenance and refactoring efforts will yield the greatest practical benefit. Although software analytics such as code health, hotspots, and coupling provide valuable signals, they do not always capture the experienced burden of change that slows software evolution in practice. This paper presents a multi-case industrial study of technical debt friction as a prioritization-oriented concept for identifying where technical debt most strongly affects maintenance and evolution. We investigate how practitioners interpret the concept, whether friction-related analysis aligns with perceived maintenance pain points and refactoring needs, and what broader maintenance and evolution insights friction can provide beyond individual refactoring candidates. To this end, we conducted structured walkthrough sessions with practitioners across multiple industrial cases using analysis artifacts including code health, hotspots, coupling, refactoring targets, and socio-technical views. Our findings show that practitioners generally considered technical debt friction useful for reasoning about maintenance burden, especially when interpreted together with complementary technical and socio-technical views. At the file level, friction often aligned with known problematic areas and, in several cases, with files that later received maintenance attention, although its practical relevance depended strongly on context. In addition, our exploratory project-level analysis suggests that friction distributions may reveal broader maintenance and evolution patterns. These results indicate that technical debt friction is promising as a decision-support concept, but most effective when used with contextual knowledge and supporting evidence.