Do These Violent Delights Have Violent Ends? Measuring the Post-Merge Fate of Agentic Code

Agentic coding tools are increasingly capable of generating and submitting pull requests (PRs) to software projects, introducing new forms of human-agent collaboration in software development. While prior studies have examined PR-level outcomes of agent-generated contributions, less is known about how agentic coding tools are adopted and managed at the project level. In this paper, we analyze 25,264 agentic PRs from 2,361 popular GitHub repositories to investigate (1) the adoption of agentic coding tools, (2) project-level agentic PR productivity, and (3) human-agent collaboration patterns. Our results show that the median repository generates only one to two agentic PRs during a three-month period, indicating that intensive adoption remains concentrated in a small subset of projects. At the same time, small projects (1-5 contributors) exhibit higher participation ratios and average levels of agentic PR activity than medium-sized and large projects. We also observe substantial variation in project-level agentic PR productivity. While a small number of projects exceed an industry-reported estimate of 36 PRs per participant during the three-month observation period, most projects remain below this threshold. Finally, human-agent collaboration is dominated by a single-human oversight model, in which one developer reviews and/or modifies the agent's contributions, while multi-human collaboration patterns remain uncommon. These findings provide early empirical evidence on how open-source projects organize human oversight around agentic coding tools and suggest that successful integration of agent-generated contributions depends not only on advances in agent capabilities but also on the human and organizational processes that govern their use. Because this study captures an early snapshot of agent adoption, future work should continue to track how adoption patterns evolve over time.

Autonomous coding agents now open and merge pull requests in shared repositories at scale, and the field evaluates them the way it has always evaluated components, one agent at a time, on isolated benchmark tasks. Yet agents that each pass their own tests still leave repositories that accumulate problems no single contribution accounts for. We ask whether this problem belongs to the individual agent or to the repository where it accumulates. We study integration friction, the cost of integrating a contribution into a codebase that other contributors are concurrently changing. Across more than 930,000 agent-authored pull requests, we measure how much of the variation in friction stays with the repository after the contribution, its author, its size, and its agent are accounted for. About half does, and it survives full controls. In the same repositories, agent-authored contributions concentrate this repository-level friction roughly twice as much as human ones (intraclass correlation 0.30 versus 0.16), a gap that holds after controlling for codebase size, age, task shape, process maturity, and merge path. The risk is a property of the ecosystem, not the agent. AI-native software is therefore better measured and governed at the ecosystem level than one agent at a time.

As AI agents increasingly contribute to code development and maintenance, there is still limited empirical evidence on the quality and risk characteristics of their changes in real-world projects, particularly for refactoring-oriented contributions. It remains unclear how agent-authored refactoring edits affect maintainability, code quality, and security once merged into GitHub repositories. To address this gap, we conduct an empirical study of Python refactoring pull requests (PRs) from the AIDev dataset. We analyze agentic refactoring PRs using PyQu, an ML-based quality assessment tool for Python, to quantify changes across five quality attributes, and we complement PyQu with domain-independent static analysis (Pylint and Bandit) to measure code quality and security issues before and after each change. Our results show that, on average, agentic commits improve a quality attribute in 22.5% of the studied changes, with usability improving most frequently (36.5%). At the same time, 24.17% of modified files introduce new Pylint issues predominantly convention level violations such as long lines-while 4.7% introduce new Bandit findings. From the observed diffs, we derive a taxonomy of 24 recurring change operations and map them to the lint and security findings they most commonly affect. Despite these mixed outcomes, developer acceptance is high: 73.5% of the analyzed PRs are merged, including cases that introduce new lint or security findings, often alongside the removal of existing issues. Overall, these findings highlight both the promise and current limitations of agentic refactoring, and motivate stronger tool-in-the-loop quality and security gating for AI-driven development workflows.