In today's software architecture, large language models (LLMs) serve as software architecture co-pilots. However, no benchmark currently exists to evaluate large language models' actual understanding of cloud-native software architecture. For this reason we present a benchmark called CAKE, which consists of 188 expert-validated questions covering four cognitive levels of Bloom's revised taxonomy -- recall, analyze, design, and implement -- and five cloud-native topics. Evaluation is conducted on 22 model configurations (0.5B--70B parameters) across four LLM families, using three-run majority voting for multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and LLM-as-a-judge scoring for free-responses (FR). Based on this evaluation, four notable findings were identified. First, MCQ accuracy plateaus above 3B parameters, with the best model reaching 99.2%. Second, free-response scores scale steadily across all cognitive levels. Third, the two formats capture different facets of knowledge, as the MCQ accuracy approaches a ceiling while free-responses continue to differentiate models. Finally, reasoning augmentation (+think) improves free-response quality, while tool augmentation (+tool) degrades performance for small models. These results suggest that the evaluation format fundamentally shapes how we measure architectural knowledge in LLMs.

AI coding agents select frameworks, scaffold infrastructure, and wire integrations, often in seconds. These are architectural decisions, yet almost no one reviews them as such. We identify five mechanisms by which agents make implicit architectural choices and propose six prompt-architecture coupling patterns that map natural-language prompt features to the infrastructure they require. The patterns range from contingent couplings (structured output validation) that may weaken as models improve to fundamental ones (tool-call orchestration) that persist regardless of model capability. An illustrative demonstration confirms that prompt wording alone produces structurally different systems for the same task. We term the phenomenon vibe architecting, architecture shaped by prompts rather than deliberate design, and outline review practices, decision records, and tooling to bring these hidden decisions under governance.

Ad hoc dataset search requires matching underspecified natural-language queries against sparse, heterogeneous metadata records, a task where typical lexical or dense retrieval alone falls short. We reposition dataset search as a software-architecture problem and propose a bounded, auditable reference architecture for agentic hybrid retrieval that combines BM25 lexical search with dense-embedding retrieval via reciprocal rank fusion, orchestrated by a large language model agent that repeatedly plans queries, evaluates the sufficiency of results, and reranks candidates. To reduce vocabulary mismatch, we introduce an offline metadata augmentation step in which an LLM generates pseudo-queries for each dataset record, augmenting both retrieval indexes before query time. Two architectural styles are examined: a single ReAct agent and a multi-agent horizontal architecture with Feedback Control. Their quality-attribute tradeoffs are analyzed with respect to modifiability, observability, performance, and governance.

AI deployment in sensitive domains such as health care, credit, employment, and criminal justice is often treated as unsafe to authorize until model internals can be explained. This often leads to an excessive reliance on mechanistic interpretability to address a deployment challenge beyond its intended scope. We argue that the gate should instead be calibrated verification: authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable. The reason is twofold. First, model capability is uneven across nearby tasks, so authorization must attach to a specific use rather than to a model in general. Second, societies have long governed opaque expertise through credentials, monitoring, liability, appeal, and revocation rather than mechanism-level explanation. Recent evidence reinforces this distinction between mechanistic understanding and deployment authority: a 53-percentage-point gap between internal representations and output correction shows that understanding may not translate into action, while one scoping review found that only 9.0% of FDA-approved AI/ML device documents contained a prospective post-market surveillance study. We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.