As Software Engineering enters its new era (SE 3.0), AI coding agents increasingly automate software development workflows. However, it remains unclear how exactly these agents recognize and address software energy concerns—an issue growing in importance due to large-scale data centers, energy-hungry language models, and battery-constrained devices. In this paper, we examined the energy awareness of agent-authored pull requests (PRs) using a publicly available dataset. We identified 216 energy-explicit PRs and conducted a thematic analysis, deriving a taxonomy of energy-aware work. Our further analysis of the applied optimization techniques shows that most align with established research recommendations. Although building and running these agents is highly energy-intensive, encouragingly, the results indicate that they exhibit energy awareness when generating software artifacts. However, optimization-related PRs are accepted less frequently than others, largely due to their negative impact on maintainability.

Tangled code changes, commits that conflate unrelated modifications such as bug fixes, refactorings, and enhancements, introduce significant noise into bug datasets and adversely affect the performance of bug prediction models. Addressing this issue at a fine-grained, method-level granularity remains unexplored. This is critical to address, as recent bug prediction models, driven by practitioner demand, are increasingly focusing on finer granularity rather than traditional class- or file-level predictions. This study investigates the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) for detecting tangled code changes by leveraging both commit messages and method-level code diffs. We formulate the problem as a binary classification task and evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting, using state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.0-Flash, and open-source models such as GPT-OSS-120B and CodeBERT.

Mocking is a common unit testing technique that is used to simplify tests, reduce flakiness, and improve coverage by replacing real dependencies with simplified implementations. Despite its widespread use in Open Source Software (OSS) projects, there is limited understanding of how and why developers use mocks and the challenges they face. In this study, we have analyzed 25,302 questions related to Mocking on StackOverflow to identify the challenges faced by developers. We have used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) for topic modeling, identified 30 key topics, and grouped the topics into five key categories. Consequently, we analyzed the annual and relative probabilities of each category to understand the evolution of mocking-related discussions. Trend analysis reveals that categories such as Mocking Techniques and External Services have remained consistently dominant, highlighting evolving developer priorities and ongoing technical challenges. While the questions on Theoretical category declined after 2010, posts regarding Error Handling grew notably from 2009. Our findings also show an inverse relationship between a topic’s popularity and its difficulty. Popular topics like Framework Selection tend to have lower difficulty and faster resolution times, while complex topics like HTTP Requests and Responses are more likely to remain unanswered and take longer to resolve. Additionally, we evaluated questions based on the answer status- successful, ordinary, or unsuccessful, and found that topics such as Framework Selection have higher success rates, whereas tool setup and Android-related issues are more often unresolved. A classification of questions into How, Why, What , and Other revealed that over 64 % are How questions, particularly in practical domains like file access, APIs, and databases, indicating a strong need for implementation guidance. Why questions are more prevalent in error-handling contexts, reflecting conceptual challenges in debugging, while What questions are rare and mostly tied to theoretical discussions. These insights offer valuable guidance for improving developer support, tooling, and educational content in the context of mocking and unit testing.