Triage: Routing Software Engineering Tasks to Cost-Effective LLM Tiers via Code Quality Signals

Context: AI coding agents route every task to a single frontier large language model (LLM), paying premium inference cost even when many tasks are routine. Objectives: We propose Triage, a framework that uses code health metrics -- indicators of software maintainability -- as a routing signal to assign each task to the cheapest model tier whose output passes the same verification gate as the expensive model. Methods: Triage defines three capability tiers (light, standard, heavy -- mirroring, e.g., Haiku, Sonnet, Opus) and routes tasks based on pre-computed code health sub-factors and task metadata. We design an evaluation comparing three routing policies on SWE-bench Lite (300 tasks across three model tiers): heuristic thresholds, a trained ML classifier, and a perfect-hindsight oracle. Results: We analytically derived two falsifiable conditions under which the tier-dependent asymmetry (medium LLMs benefit from clean code while frontier models do not) yields cost-effective routing: the light-tier pass rate on healthy code must exceed the inter-tier cost ratio, and code health must discriminate the required model tier with at least a small effect size ($\hat{p} \geq 0.56$). Conclusion: Triage transforms a diagnostic code quality metric into an actionable model-selection signal. We present a rigorous evaluation protocol to test the cost--quality trade-off and identify which code health sub-factors drive routing decisions.

The Landscape of Generative AI in Information Systems: A Synthesis of Secondary Reviews and Research Agendas

As organizations grapple with the rapid adoption of Generative AI (GenAI), this study synthesizes the state of knowledge through a systematic literature review of secondary studies and research agendas. Analyzing 28 papers published since 2023, we find that while GenAI offers transformative potential for productivity and innovation, its adoption is constrained by multiple interrelated challenges, including technical unreliability (hallucinations, performance drift), societal-ethical risks (bias, misuse, skill erosion), and a systemic governance vacuum (privacy, accountability, intellectual property). Interpreted through a socio-technical lens, these findings reveal a persistent misalignment between GenAI's fast-evolving technical subsystem and the slower-adapting social subsystem, positioning IS research as critical for achieving joint optimization. To bridge this gap, we discuss a research agenda that reorients IS scholarship from analyzing impacts toward actively shaping the co-evolution of technical capabilities with organizational procedures, societal values, and regulatory institutions--emphasizing hybrid human--AI ensembles, situated validation, design principles for probabilistic systems, and adaptive governance.

LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews

Context: Large language models (LLMs) are released faster than users' ability to evaluate them rigorously. When LLMs underpin research, such as identifying relevant literature for systematic reviews (SRs), robust empirical assessment is essential. Objective: We identify and discuss key challenges in assessing LLM performance for selecting relevant literature, identify good (evaluation) practices, and propose recommendations. Method: Using a recent large-scale study as an example, we identify problems with the use of traditional metrics for assessing the performance of Gen-AI tools for identifying relevant literature in SRs. We analyzed 27 additional papers investigating this issue, extracted the performance metrics, and found both good practices and widespread problems, especially with the use and reporting of performance metrics for SR screening. Results: Major weaknesses included: i) a failure to use metrics that are robust to imbalanced data and do not directly indicate whether results are better than chance, e.g., the use of Accuracy, ii) a failure to consider the impact of lost evidence when making claims concerning workload savings, and iii) pervasive failure to report the full confusion matrix (or performance metrics from which it can be reconstructed) which is essential for future meta-analyses. On the positive side, we extract good (evaluation) practices on which our recommendations for researchers and practitioners, as well as policymakers, are built. Conclusions: SR screening evaluations should prioritize lost evidence/recall alongside chance-anchored and cost-sensitive Weighted MCC (WMCC) metric, report complete confusion matrices, treat unclassifiable outputs as referred-back positives for assessment, adopt leakage-aware designs with non-LLM baselines and open artifacts, and ground conclusions in cost-benefit analysis where FNs carry higher penalties than FPs.