Everyone seems to agree on the same story: agents write the code, and the tools we already use stick around. Jira orchestrates the agents, GitHub verifies their work, Terraform enforces policy.
I buy the first half. The second half assumes that because a function survives, the vendor performing it keeps getting paid. That doesn’t follow. Teams will keep needing coordination, version control and infrastructure management. Whether they keep paying today’s prices for them is a separate question.
Start with Jira. It was built to organize human work, and it’s priced that way, by the seat. If an agent finds a bug, fixes it, runs the tests and prepares the release, a ticket may still exist, but fewer people touch it. The workflow survives, but the relationship between work performed and seats sold starts to break down.
Atlassian sees this. Rovo now meters AI activity and access to organizational context through credits, with additional usage billing scheduled to begin in December 2026. GitHub is moving toward a mix of seats and usage too. That’s adaptation, not collapse.
I still think Jira’s traditional economics are more exposed than GitHub’s, and the reason is margin. A traditional software seat costs relatively little to serve. Agent usage carries inference costs that someone has to pay. Usage revenue can replace seat revenue and still leave a worse business, so margin is the number to watch, not just revenue growth.
The best argument against me is that every agent becomes a heavy consumer of Atlassian’s organizational context. If that consumption carries attractive margins, AI could strengthen Jira. My bet is that inference-heavy usage will struggle to match the margins of traditional seats. Atlassian could prove me wrong if its context services command enough pricing power to offset those costs.
GitHub sits closer to the artifact. Repositories, history and provenance matter whoever writes the code. Its problem is different: passing tests isn’t the same as proving the change is correct.
An agent can write the code and the tests and still be wrong about the requirement. A second agent reviewing the work may share the first one’s assumptions.
Imagine a claims system. An agent finds that removing a validation step speeds processing by 35%. The tests pass and the security scan is clean, but that validation enforced an underwriting rule. The agent saw an inefficiency where the business had a constraint.
More tests derived from the same incomplete specification won’t fix that. The underwriting constraint has to be represented independently of the agent’s optimization objective.
Infrastructure has a version of the same problem. Terraform was declarative long before AI. What changes is volume. Ten changes that each pass policy can still add up to a capacity or resilience problem no single check sees.
I expect basic configuration generation and routine policy checks to lose differentiation, with pricing power moving toward whoever manages infrastructure state and cross-system consequences. More agents could also mean more managed resources, which helps incumbents. I’m predicting where pricing power concentrates, not who disappears.
In Migrating Scarcity, I argued that when something scarce gets cheap, the constraint moves to whatever it depended on.
Implementation was the scarce thing in software. As it gets cheaper, deciding what’s worth building and which risks to accept become relatively more important. Some of that work will be automated too.
Authority is the part I think holds, because someone has to answer for it. Regulators, insurers and boards can ask who allowed a consequential change. An agent can enforce a policy and propose a new one, but it shouldn’t be able to give itself permission to remove the constraint it was meant to respect.
Permission to execute is not permission to redefine success.
Scarce isn’t the same as profitable, though. Companies can meet accountability obligations through internal policies, contracts and existing controls. Audit logs, identity systems and attestations already cover part of the problem.
My bet is that a market still emerges around enforcing authority across systems. A repository can prove what changed. An infrastructure tool can prove what was deployed. Neither necessarily knows whether the change broke a business rule maintained in a third system.
I’d guess the winners are platforms that already control permissions: identity and security vendors, and GitHub where authority attaches to code. Atlassian has valuable context, but I suspect context will be easier to bundle than control. Cloud platforms are the wild card.
I’m wrong if agent consumption of Atlassian’s context grows enough to offset lost seats at attractive margins. I’m wrong if companies can delegate consequential decisions through existing automated policies without paying for another governance layer. And I’m wrong about the business, though not necessarily the constraint, if incumbents bundle all of this and charge nothing extra.
One more worry. If agents do the routine work, how do junior engineers build the judgment to own the big decisions later? Apprenticeship meant doing ordinary work first. A company could ship far more software while gradually losing the ability to govern it.
That would be a strange productivity victory. So the question isn’t which tools survive. It’s which constraints stay scarce enough that companies will pay to manage them.
