Campus AI Development Sources

14 — Sources

Further reading

  1. Karpathy, A. (2025, Feb.). Post introducing the term "vibe coding." X. x.com
  2. Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., & Demirer, M. (2023). The impact of AI on developer productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot. arXiv:2302.06590. arxiv.org
  3. METR. (2025). Measuring the impact of early-2025 AI on experienced open-source developer productivity. arxiv.org
  4. Google Cloud DORA. (2024). Accelerate State of DevOps Report 2024. dora.dev
  5. Kazemitabaar, M., et al. (2023). Studying the effect of AI code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. CHI '23. doi.org
  6. Prather, J., et al. (2024). The widening gap: The benefits and harms of generative AI for novice programmers. ICER '24. arxiv.org
  7. Liu, R., et al. (2024). Teaching CS50 with AI: Leveraging generative artificial intelligence in computer science education. SIGCSE '24. doi.org
  8. Pearce, H., et al. (2022). Asleep at the keyboard? Assessing the security of GitHub Copilot’s code contributions. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. arxiv.org
  9. Perry, N., et al. (2023). Do users write more insecure code with AI assistants? ACM CCS '23. arxiv.org
  10. Spracklen, J., et al. (2025). We have a package for you! A comprehensive analysis of package hallucinations by code generating LLMs. USENIX Security '25. arxiv.org
  11. EDUCAUSE. (2024–2025). AI Landscape Study and Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Edition.
  12. Basgen, B., & Frain, F. (2026, Sept. 21). Vibe coding in production. EDUCAUSE Review. er.educause.edu
  13. USC Center for Advanced Research Computing. (2026, July 16). AI coding agents [user guide]. carc.usc.edu
  14. University of Utah CHPC. (2026). Coding agents [documentation]. chpc.utah.edu
  15. Besser, S. A., Jensen, E. A., & Katz, D. S. (2026). How generative AI is shaping research software development and maintenance at a research-intensive university. Open Research Europe, 6, 56. open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu
  16. Druskat, S., et al. (2026, May 28). Research software engineers in the age of GenAI: Same value, changing practice. Research Software Alliance. doi.org
  17. Wang, S., Guo, N., & Zhang, K. (2026, May 11). Vibe coding belongs in your university’s GenAI literacy strategy. THE Campus. timeshighereducation.com
  18. Sarigoz, C. (2026, Sept. 11). Vibe coding vs spec-driven dev: A per-task decision guide. BizStack. bizstack.tech
  19. Tyagi, A. (2026, June 15). Spec-driven development vs vibe coding. Levelop. levelop.dev
  20. 10xTeam. (2026, May 22). AI dev methodologies: From vibe coding to the contracts pattern. 10xdev.blog. 10xdev.blog
  21. AppyPie. (2026, Oct. 8). Vibe coding vs agentic coding vs spec-driven: Tested (2026). appypie.com
  22. Sharma, A. (2026, June 5). Vibe coding vs spec-driven development (2026). TurboDocx. turbodocx.com
  23. Augment Code. (2026, Mar. 12). Vibe coding vs spec-driven development (2026): When to use each. augmentcode.com
  24. GitHub. Spec Kit documentation. github.github.io
  25. BMAD-METHOD. Breakthrough Method for Agile AI Driven Development. github.com
  26. Sarkar, A., & Drosos, I. (2025). Vibe coding: Programming through conversation with artificial intelligence. arXiv:2506.23253. arxiv.org

Version history

Keeping the guide current

Tools, models and law are changing quickly. Legal status and tool descriptions are dated where they appear; this log records what changed and when.

  1. 1.0 · Oct. 11, 2026First public release: 14 chapters, five approach pages, a platform track, eight scenarios with questions and proportionate controls, data classification, legal triggers and a governance checklist.