SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2603.15021

Describing Agentic AI Systems with C4: Lessons from Industry Projects

Abstract

Different domains foster different architectural styles -- and thus different documentation practices (e.g., state-based models for behavioral control vs. ER-style models for information structures). Agentic AI systems exhibit another characteristic style: specialized agents collaborate by exchanging artifacts, invoking external tools, and coordinating via recurring interaction patterns and quality gates. As these systems evolve into long-lived industrial solutions, documentation must capture these style-defining concerns rather than relying on ad-hoc code sketches or pipeline drawings. This paper reports industrial experience from joint projects and derives a documentation systematics tailored to this style. Concretely, we provide (i) a style-oriented modeling vocabulary and a small set of views for agents, artifacts, tools, and their coordination patterns, (ii) a hierarchical description technique aligned with C4 to structure these views across abstraction levels, and (iii) industrial examples with lessons learned that demonstrate how the approach yields transparent, maintainable architecture documentation supporting sustained evolution.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Andreas Rausch, Stefan Wittek. 2026-03-16. Describing Agentic AI Systems with C4: Lessons from Industry Projects. https://doi.org/10.1109/icsa-c68850.2026.00092

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE

Towards a Reliable and Practical Eval Pipeline

LLM-based software systems increasingly require effective "evals" as quality gates in the development lifecycle. However, existing work typically addresses individual aspects of eval reliability rather than the full set of practical requirements. We present an end-to-end eval pipeline that combines eval checklist creation, with learned aggregation for checklist responses, to improve agreement across LLM judges and accuracy against human judgments. The framework additionally pro- vides self-consistency, explanations, and prediction uncertainty, and we empirically demonstrate its effectiveness.

cs.AI