Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Guide to software engineering research topics and methodologies
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-software-engineering-research/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 193% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 108% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 94% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 104% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 210% | 0% |
Navigate the landscape of software engineering research, including key subfields, methodologies, datasets, benchmarks, and top venues.
| Subfield | Key Topics | Major Venues | |----------|-----------|-------------| | Software Testing | Test generation, fuzzing, mutation testing, flaky tests | ISSTA, ICST, ASE | | Program Analysis | Static analysis, abstract interpretation, symbolic execution | PLDI, POPL, OOPSLA | | Software Maintenance | Code refactoring, technical debt, code smells, evolution | ICSME, MSR, SANER | | SE for AI/ML | ML pipeline testing, data quality, model debugging | ICSE-SEIP, FSE | | AI for SE | Code generation, bug detection, program repair | ICSE, FSE, ASE | | Distributed Systems | Consensus, fault tolerance, scalability, microservices | SOSP, OSDI, EuroSys | | Cybersecurity | Vulnerability detection, malware analysis, privacy | IEEE S&P, CCS, USENIX Security | | HCI in SE | Developer tools, IDE usability, code comprehension | CHI, CSCW, VL/HCC | | Empirical SE | Mining repositories, developer surveys, controlled experiments | ESEM, MSR, TOSEM |
Testing a specific hypothesis with treatment and control groups:
markdownExample: Does AI code completion improve developer productivity? Design: - Participants: 60 professional developers - Treatment: IDE with AI code completion enabled - Control: IDE with AI code completion disabled - Task: Complete 5 programming tasks of varying difficulty - Metrics: Task completion time, code correctness, lines of code - Analysis: Mixed-effects linear model with participant as random effect Threats to validity: - Internal: Learning effect (counterbalance task order) - External: Lab setting may not reflect real development - Construct: "Productivity" operationalized as speed + correctness
Analyzing data from version control, issue trackers, code review systems:
python# Example: Analyze commit patterns using PyDriller from pydriller import Repository repo_url = "https://github.com/apache/kafka" commit_data = [] for commit in Repository(repo_url, since=datetime(2023, 1, 1), to=datetime(2023, 12, 31)).traverse_commits(): commit_data.append({ "hash": commit.hash[:8], "author": commit.author.name, "date": commit.committer_date, "files_changed": commit.files, "insertions": commit.insertions, "deletions": commit.deletions, "message": commit.msg[:100] }) df = pd.DataFrame(commit_data) print(f"Total commits in 2023: {len(df)}") print(f"Unique contributors: {df['author'].nunique()}") print(f"Avg files per commit: {df['files_changed'].mean():.1f}")
In-depth investigation of a phenomenon in its real-world context:
markdownCase Study Protocol (based on Yin, 2018): 1. Research questions: How do teams adopt microservices? 2. Unit of analysis: Development teams at 3 companies 3. Data sources: - Semi-structured interviews (8-12 per company) - Architecture documentation review - Commit history and deployment logs - Meeting observations 4. Analysis: Thematic analysis with cross-case comparison 5. Validity: Triangulation across data sources, member checking
| Benchmark | Task | Languages | Size | |-----------|------|-----------|------| | HumanEval | Code generation from docstrings | Python | 164 problems | | MBPP | Code generation from descriptions | Python | 974 problems | | SWE-bench | Real-world GitHub issue resolution | Python | 2,294 instances | | CodeXGLUE | Multiple code tasks | 6 languages | Varies by task | | BigCloneBench | Clone detection | Java | 6M clone pairs | | Defects4J | Bug localization and repair | Java | 835 real bugs |
| Dataset | Content | Use Cases | |---------|---------|-----------| | GHTorrent | GitHub event data (commits, issues, PRs) | MSR studies | | Software Heritage | Universal source code archive | Code evolution, provenance | | Stack Overflow Data Dump | Q&A posts, tags, votes | Developer knowledge, NLP | | CVE Database | Vulnerability records | Security research | | Chrome/Firefox Bug Trackers | Bug reports, patches | Bug triage, severity prediction |
python# Example: Using tree-sitter for AST-level code analysis from tree_sitter import Language, Parser import tree_sitter_python as tspython PYTHON_LANGUAGE = Language(tspython.language()) parser = Parser(PYTHON_LANGUAGE) source_code = b""" def fibonacci(n): if n <= 1: return n return fibonacci(n-1) + fibonacci(n-2) """ tree = parser.parse(source_code) root = tree.root_node def count_nodes(node, node_type): """Count AST nodes of a given type.""" count = 1 if node.type == node_type else 0 for child in node.children: count += count_nodes(child, node_type) return count print(f"Function definitions: {count_nodes(root, 'function_definition')}") print(f"If statements: {count_nodes(root, 'if_statement')}") print(f"Return statements: {count_nodes(root, 'return_statement')}") print(f"Function calls: {count_nodes(root, 'call')}")
python# Common software metrics metrics = { "Lines of Code (LOC)": "Total lines (including blanks and comments)", "Cyclomatic Complexity": "Number of independent paths (McCabe, 1976)", "Halstead Volume": "Based on operators and operands count", "Maintainability Index": "Composite of LOC, CC, and Halstead", "Coupling Between Objects": "Number of other classes referenced", "Depth of Inheritance": "Levels in class hierarchy", "Code Churn": "Lines added + modified + deleted per period", "Comment Density": "Ratio of comment lines to total lines" } # Calculate cyclomatic complexity using radon # pip install radon import subprocess result = subprocess.run( ["radon", "cc", "my_module.py", "-s", "-j"], capture_output=True, text=True ) print(result.stdout)
| Venue | Type | Acceptance Rate | Focus | |-------|------|-----------------|-------| | ICSE | Conference | ~22% | Broad SE | | FSE/ESEC | Conference | ~24% | Broad SE | | ASE | Conference | ~22% | Automated SE | | ISSTA | Conference | ~25% | Software testing | | MSR | Conference | ~30% | Mining repositories | | TOSEM | Journal | -- | Broad SE (ACM) | | TSE | Journal | -- | Broad SE (IEEE) | | EMSE | Journal | -- | Empirical SE (Springer) |
| Venue | Type | Focus | |-------|------|-------| | SOSP/OSDI | Conference | Operating systems, distributed systems | | EuroSys | Conference | Systems (Europe) | | NSDI | Conference | Networked systems design | | IEEE S&P (Oakland) | Conference | Security and privacy | | USENIX Security | Conference | Security | | CCS | Conference | Computer and communications security | | NDSS | Conference | Network and distributed systems security |
| Tool | Purpose | URL | |------|---------|-----| | PyDriller | Git repository mining (Python) | github.com/ishepard/pydriller | | Radon | Python code metrics | github.com/rubik/radon | | SonarQube | Multi-language static analysis | sonarqube.org | | Understand | Code analysis and metrics | scitools.com | | Joern | Code analysis platform (CPG) | joern.io | | CodeQL | Semantic code analysis | codeql.github.com | | tree-sitter | Incremental parsing library | tree-sitter.github.io |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | pass→pass | 8,574 | 8,278 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,463 | 3,048 | +108% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→pass | 12,063 | 11,320 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,940 | 3,762 | +94% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 13,118 | 12,328 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,018 | 4,125 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 7,068 | 7,354 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,062 | 3,297 | +210% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 5,896 | 7,032 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,015 | 3,231 | +218% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 8,812 | 6,253 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,179 | 2,856 | +142% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 14,582 | 15,005 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,175 | 4,369 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 7,702 | 6,120 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,137 | 3,058 | +169% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 12,978 | 14,321 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,871 | 4,217 | +125% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 12,809 | 9,145 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,850 | 3,284 | +78% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 4,247 | 3,290 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 759 | 2,513 | +231% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 6,063 | 2,938 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 913 | 2,464 | +170% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 11,608 | 8,068 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,759 | 3,233 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 12,421 | 8,423 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,882 | 3,414 | +81% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 4,914 | 4,413 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 955 | 2,794 | +193% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 1,611 | 3,849 | +139% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 209 | 2,560 | +1125% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 1,934 | 2,700 | +40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 275 | 2,427 | +783% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 13,202 | 14,152 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,016 | 4,496 | +123% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 20,628 | 16,531 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,673 | 4,552 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 2,797 | 3,005 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 419 | 2,508 | +499% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 9,139 | 11,296 | +24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,446 | 3,738 | +159% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 3,449 | 4,547 | +32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 584 | 2,737 | +369% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +5 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.