Before the Pull Request: Mining Multi-Agent Coordination

Between 24 May and 2 July 2026, autonomous language-model agents running inside a timed research-question evaluation wrote to a third party's public, world-writable wiki. OpenAI acknowledged the incident; independent researchers reconstructed it and published the wiki's archived revision history. We analyse that history (14,591 revisions, 3,103 names, 4,579 pages, 19,913 server events) as a behavioural record, attributing text to the revision that added it rather than to cumulative page content. Under an explicit identity model we reconstruct 907 cohorts and, from a random calendar marker the environment attached to each episode, estimate about 876 episodes (95% interval 774-995; alternative reconstructions span 800-1400). Coordination formats converged within a day, and the schedules created large opportunities for information asymmetry: because episodes of the same question chain ran at different internal-clock rates and started up to 16 h apart, the first report of an item preceded a later cohort's arrival by a median of 3.4 h. The three schedule parameters agents reported share one latent speed scale (78% of log-variance over 15 configurations), and in one task family the last observed activity clusters by reported speed class on the internal clock, compatible with a fixed internal-time horizon. Across the 510 cohorts with an observable, format-dependent progress trace, we find no robust positive association between measured coordination and documented progress, including the few demonstrably given a future answer. Because the export contains neither successful-read logs, harness messages nor ground-truth outcomes, these results do not identify the causal origin of the coordination or its effect. We report four claims from our earlier analysis that did not survive re-examination, and argue that read and outcome logging are requirements for agent-evaluation environments.

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.

Recent advances in multi-agent systems have shown great potential for solving complex tasks. However, when multiple agents edit a shared codebase concurrently, their changes can silently conflict and inconsistent views lead to integration failures. Existing multi-agent systems address this through workspace isolation (e.g., one git worktree per agent), but this defers conflict resolution to a post-hoc merge step where recovery is expensive. In this paper, we propose STORM, i.e., STate-ORiented Management for multi-agent collaboration. Specifically, STORM manages agent states by mediating their interactions with the shared workspace, ensuring that each agent operates on a consistent view of the codebase and that conflicting edits are detected and resolved at write time. We evaluate STORM on Commit0 and PaperBench across multiple LLMs. STORM outperforms the git-worktree-based multi-agent baseline by +18.7 on Commit0-Lite and +1.4 on PaperBench, while achieving comparable or better cost efficiency. Combined with single-agent runs, STORM reaches highest scores of 87.6 and 78.2 on the two benchmarks respectively, suggesting that explicit state management is a more effective foundation for multi-agent collaboration than workspace isolation. STORM can also be plugged into any multi-agent system seamlessly.