Mining Architectural Quality Under Agentic AI Adoption: A Causal Study of Java Repositories

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

Generative AI coding agents are entering the open-source supply chain, yet their diverse and often invisible traces leave their prevalence poorly understood. We introduce a multi-layered detection framework that integrates configuration-file scanning, commit-message analysis, author-identity matching, and bot-signature lookup across World of Code (180M+ Git repositories), classifying agent traces into four behavioral types. No single method captures more than a fraction of activity: multi-method detection identifies 850,157 Claude Code commits in one snapshot, of which bot-account lookup_the signal most adoption studies rely on_recovers only 28,154 (3.3%), a 30x relative-recall gap, so single-signal prevalence estimates are biased low by at least this factor. Every detection pattern is hand-validated (495 labels) with per-cell precision and Wilson confidence intervals. Across snapshots from December 2024 to April 2026, commit-attributed agents generate over 320,000 commits per month; Claude Code leads (886,122 commits across 17,295 projects) and dominates silent, configuration-file-only adoption (21,078 projects). Compared against an independent pull-request census (AIDev), the two channels capture nearly disjoint agent populations_a PR census misses 79% of commit-detected Claude Code adopters and essentially all Codex adopters_and different kinds of work: PR-deployed cloud agents (Codex, Cursor) surface as feature work, while commit-deployed in-editor agents (Claude Code, OpenHands, Aider) surface as maintenance. The observed work profile follows deployment and detection mode rather than the tool itself, so no single channel is representative.

Open-source projects depend on a steady inflow of newcomers. A growing concern is that AI coding agents (tools such as Cursor and Claude Code that write code from natural-language instructions) will crowd them out, by absorbing the simple tasks that beginners start with and by making code harder to read. We give this concern a causal answer. Using GitHub code search we identify 1,888 projects that adopted an agent, signaled by their first commit of a configuration file. We apply difference-in-differences against matched non-adopting controls, restricting the main analysis to the 603 adopters with a genuine pre-adoption period. We find no evidence of crowding-out: across estimators newcomer inflow shows no significant decline after adoption (point estimates run from a small increase to, under the most conservative trend specification, a slight and insignificant dip), onboarding and retention are unchanged, and a sparse, correlational beginner-task measure (good-first-issue labels, which we cannot test for parallel trends) shows no decline. The feared mechanism is real but decoupled: adoption raises per-function code complexity (about +11% on a cognitive metric for Python, a quarter of the prior estimate, and +3 to 4% in cyclomatic terms across all languages), yet in fixed-unit subsets where complexity rose (Python on the cognitive metric, and all languages on the cyclomatic metric), newcomer participation does not decline. These results suggest that, in established open-source projects, adopting an AI coding agent makes code modestly more complex but does not crowd out the human newcomers that a project depends on: the feared trade-off between AI assistance and human participation does not materialize.