When AI Teammates Meet Code Review: Collaboration Signals Shaping the Integration of Agent-Authored Pull Requests

The rapid adoption of large language models has led to the emergence of AI coding agents that autonomously create pull requests on GitHub. However, how these agents differ in their pull request description characteristics, and how human reviewers respond to them, remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct an empirical analysis of pull requests created by five AI coding agents using the AIDev dataset. We analyze agent differences in pull request description characteristics, including structural features, and examine human reviewer response in terms of review activity, response timing, sentiment, and merge outcomes. We find that AI coding agents exhibit distinct PR description styles, which are associated with differences in reviewer engagement, response time, and merge outcomes. We observe notable variation across agents in both reviewer interaction metrics and merge rates. These findings highlight the role of pull request presentation and reviewer interaction dynamics in human-AI collaborative software development.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Pooled across five AI coding agents, pull requests (PRs) with a human Co-Authored-By trailer merge less often than purely-autonomous ones (53.8% vs. 79.8%) -- yet this aggregate finding is a textbook Simpson's Paradox. Stratifying 33,596 PRs from the AIDev dataset by agent identity reverses the conclusion: Copilot and Devin show large positive within-agent gaps (+41.2 and +33.5 pp, both p<0.001), while Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex show small effects whose cross-sectional 95% CIs span zero. The paradox is driven entirely by agent composition: Codex, which dominates 64.9% of the dataset, achieves high merge rates while rarely using co-authorship. But Simpson's Paradox is only the first layer of a cascade of confounders: within-repo controls eliminate Devin's gap (+33.5 to +1.6 pp, p=0.73); a commit-count control further halves Copilot's within-repo gap (+36.2 to +24.4 pp); restricted to multi-commit PRs, the Copilot within-repo effect dissolves to +4.8 pp (p=0.59). No agent retains a clear co-authorship effect once both repository selection and PR structure are controlled. Our findings caution against reporting agent-pooled statistics without stratification and demonstrate that cross-sectional co-authorship associations are largely selection and PR-structure artefacts rather than evidence of a causal benefit.