Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase

Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant. Manual code edits provide more realistic and granular information on editing behavior than Git commits, which only contain final successful code snippets. Yet, due to a lack of high-quality, realistic code editing data, LLMs are mostly trained on publicly available Git data (e.g., commits). To address this gap, we introduce DECODE (Developer Edits of Code Dataset), a dataset of 53.6K real-world in-IDE code edits of AI-generated code in Python, TypeScript, and JavaScript, sourced from 1K+ developers. First, we demonstrate the utility of DECODE for data analysis, obtaining insights on when, why, and how AI-generated code is edited. We find that most edits occur within the first 15 minutes after accepting an AI completion, resulting in the removal of AI completions in 31% of edit trajectories. Second, we use DECODE to benchmark the ability of LLMs to predict code edits. We find that finetuning on DECODE enables open-source 3B models to perform code edit prediction tasks significantly better than frontier LLMs. We then discuss implications of this work, emphasizing the necessity of developer-centric machine learning approaches for future AI programming assistants.

Contemporary LLM-based coding agents produce code as black-box outputs: the rationale behind each line is hidden, the evolution of the code through benchmark-driven repair is ephemeral, and post-hoc auditing is impossible. We present a code generation concept that addresses these shortcomings through three complementary mechanisms: (i) a relational snippet-history schema that records, per repair event, the benchmark reference, round number, failure text, and LLM explanation, enabling full provenance queries; (ii) a browser-based visualisation tool that renders this history as heat-mapped, hover-annotated source code; and (iii) a competitive fractional position-key indexing scheme with tree-node delimiters that assigns stable, lexicographically-ordered identifiers to each code snippet, enabling fine-grained tracking without disrupting surrounding lines. We evaluate TraceCoder on 30 algorithmic programming tasks spanning string processing, mathematical computation, and data-structure manipulation, across two provider configurations. Of these, 10 exhaust the 6-iteration budget on tasks with subtle edge-case behaviour. Mean Chg% reaches 30%, three in ten code snippets carry a traceable repair-event row, compared to 21% when using Gemini 2.0 Flash as sole provider on a 20-task subset. Three detailed case studies demonstrate how the system explains which specific benchmark failures shaped each line of the final program. The proposed mechanism makes the internal "narrative" of automated code generation auditable and replayable, a property essential for trust and accountability in production deployments.

AI coding agents are being adopted at scale, yet we lack empirical evidence on how people actually use them and how much of their output is useful in practice. We present SWE-chat, the first large-scale dataset of real coding agent sessions collected from open-source developers in the wild. The dataset currently contains almost 18,000 sessions, comprising more than 229,000 user prompts and 2 million agent tool calls. SWE-chat is a living dataset; our collection pipeline automatically and continually discovers and processes sessions from public repositories. Leveraging SWE-chat, we provide an initial empirical characterization of real-world coding agent usage and failure modes. We find that coding patterns are bimodal: in 41% of sessions, agents author virtually all committed code ("vibe coding"), while in 25%, humans write all code themselves. Despite rapidly improving capabilities, coding agents remain inefficient in natural settings. Only 59% of all agent-produced code survives into user commits, and agent-written code introduces more security vulnerabilities than code authored by humans. Furthermore, users push back against agent outputs - through corrections, failure reports, and interruptions - in 50% of all turns. By capturing complete interaction traces with human vs. agent code authorship attribution, SWE-chat provides an empirical foundation for moving beyond curated benchmarks towards an evidence-based understanding of how AI agents perform in real developer workflows.