Code readability is fundamental to software quality and maintainability. Poor readability extends development time, increases bug-inducing risks, and contributes to technical debt. With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models, AI agent-based approaches have emerged as a promising paradigm for automated refactoring, capable of decomposing complex tasks through autonomous planning and execution. While prior studies have examined refactoring by AI agents, these analyses cover all forms of refactoring, including performance optimization and structural improvement. As a result, the extent to which AI agent-based refactoring specifically improves code readability remains unclear.

Policy as Code (PaC) is an emerging DevOps practice that enables teams to specify organisational and technical policies, such as regulatory compliance, security requirements, and resource limits, through machine-enforceable declarative code. As PaC gains prominence, practitioners face difficulties in adopting PaC while there remains a limited empirical understanding of how these policies are introduced, what types can be expressed, and how they are maintained in practice.

Fuzzing has become a popular technique for automatically detecting vulnerabilities and bugs by generating unexpected inputs. In recent years, the fuzzing process has been integrated into continuous integration workflows (i.e., continuous fuzzing), enabling short and frequent testing cycles. Despite its widespread adoption, prior research has not examined whether the effectiveness of continuous fuzzing varies across programming languages.

Agentic Coding, powered by autonomous agents such as GitHub Copilot and Cursor, enables developers to generate code, tests, and pull requests from natural language instructions alone. While this accelerates implementation, it produces larger volumes of code per pull request, shifting the burden from implementers to reviewers. In practice, a notable portion of AI-generated code is eventually deleted during review, yet reviewers must still examine such code before deciding to remove it. No prior work has explored methods to help reviewers efficiently identify code that will be removed.

Agent-based coding tools have transformed software development practices. Unlike prompt-based approaches that require developers to manually integrate generated code, these agent-based tools autonomously interact with repositories to create, modify, and execute code, including test generation. While many developers have adopted agent-based coding tools, little is known about how these tools generate tests in real-world development scenarios or how AI-generated tests compare to human-written ones.

Modern software development heavily relies on third-party dependencies to reduce workload and improve developer productivity. Given the vast number of dependencies available and the ease of including them in projects, some introduced dependencies are never used, leading to bloated software, longer build times, and increased network bandwidth usage. While several previous studies have examined the prevalence of unused dependencies and their impact on security, it remains unclear how these dependencies are introduced and removed in software projects. This study aims to answer this question through an empirical study involving 3,020 release versions of 417 Java projects. Our analysis shows that unused packages are common in most projects ($52 \%$ of projects), but few releases (9%) introduce new unused dependencies. Among those resolved unused dependencies, $59 \%$ of them were removed and $41 \%$ were used in later versions. Our findings highlight that not all unused dependencies should be removed in practice.

The importance of supporting test and maintenance activities in software development has been increasing, since recent software systems have become large and complex. Although in the field of Mining Software Repositories (MSR) there are many promising approaches to predicting, localizing, and triaging bugs, most of them do not consider impacts of each bug on users and developers but rather treat all bugs with equal weighting, excepting a few studies on high impact bugs including security, performance, blocking, and so forth. To make MSR techniques more actionable and effective in practice, we need deeper understandings of high impact bugs. In this paper we introduced our dataset of high impact bugs which was created by manually reviewing four thousand issue reports in four open source projects (Ambari, Camel, Derby and Wicket).