The tools and infrastructure used in tech, including Open Source Software (OSS), can embed "inclusivity bugs"- features that disproportionately disadvantage particular groups of contributors. To see whether OSS developers have existing practices to ward off such bugs, we surveyed 266 OSS developers. Our results show that a majority (77%) of developers do not use any inclusivity practices, and 92% of respondents cited a lack of concrete resources to enable them to do so. To help fill this gap, this paper introduces AID, a tool that automates the GenderMag method to systematically find gender-inclusivity bugs in software. We then present the results of the tool's evaluation on 20 GitHub projects. The tool achieved precision of 0.69, recall of 0.92, an F-measure of 0.79 and even captured some inclusivity bugs that human GenderMag teams missed.

Although the need for gender-inclusivity in software is gaining attention among SE researchers and SE practitioners, and at least one method (GenderMag) has been published to help, little has been reported on how to make such methods work in real-world settings. Real-world teams are ever-mindful of the practicalities of adding new methods on top of their existing processes. For example, how can they keep the time costs viable? How can they maximize impacts of using it? What about controversies that can arise in talking about gender? To find out how software teams "in the trenches" handle these and similar questions, we collected the GenderMag-based processes of 10 real-world software teams---more than 50 people---for periods ranging from 5 months to 3.5 years. We present these teams' insights and experiences in the form of 9 practices, 2 potential pitfalls, and 2 open issues, so as to provide their insights to other real-world software teams trying to engineer gender-inclusivity into their software products.