Pull Requests

We introduce Knowledge Pull Requests (KPRs), a framework for continual document authoring that makes each change interpretable. Documents require ongoing revision as new knowledge surfaces from other sources, languages, or times, but existing approaches either edit with no account of what knowledge changed or regenerate from scratch. A KPR integrates new knowledge into a document by extracting claims, filtering and routing them to sections, and flagging conflicts with existing content, producing a ChangeLog that separates what knowledge changes (claim proposal) from how the text changes (document diff). We evaluate KPRs on revising Wikipedia across languages and updating query-driven reports on RAGTIME. KPRs integrate more information and better preserve existing content than rewriting from sources or regenerating from scratch, while adding the most information per token generated. A KPR-revised article also grounds question answering better than a frontier model with search, which does not surface knowledge documented only in other languages.

Parallel coding agents can produce patches that work alone but fail when merged. This happens when one agent changes an interface or rule that another agent still relies on. We study these failures with stale, a benchmark for semantic coordination. Our evaluation runs the same tests on each patch alone and on their combination, counting only failures introduced by combining the patches. We use three tiers: synthetic tasks with controlled interface changes, pairs of merged pull requests, and constructed tasks that use real Django helpers. Among 834 runs on 417 mined Django pairs, only one showed interference after correcting the grading procedure. On constructed tasks using 12 Django helpers, interference occurred in 97% of runs. A message describing the completed concurrent change recovered 82% of runs. Reviewed pull requests may contain few unresolved parallel changes, even when agents fail on controlled tasks using real code. The constructed failure rates do not estimate how often these problems occur in practice.

Coding-agent benchmarks increasingly cover long-horizon, end-to-end, and interactive development, but typically retain one requested outcome or a fixed change sequence. Sequential policies can process a pull-request (PR) queue one candidate at a time, but when queued PRs interact, maximizing safe delivery can require jointly deciding which changes to merge and in what order. We introduce BulkPR-Bench, an executable benchmark in which an agent must recover consequential PR relations and return a large safe subset in executable order under a rolling-release protocol. The suite contains 581 newly authored candidate PRs on frozen snapshots of 18 real repositories. Registered state-by-state repository execution, including hidden safety checks, validates the gold relation graph; an exact oracle then computes the largest safe subset. Our primary metric, Relational Delivery Score (RDS), scores safe delivery and correct rejection over relation groups from the realized merge trace; Global Safety-Gated Yield (Global-SGY) separately measures strict delivery of the realized whole-queue plan. Under the buffered primary protocol with batch size $K=32$, the three highest RDS estimates among the six models are 66.6%, 62.0%, and 57.9%, compared with 53.1% for the strongest sequential baseline. Only 8 of 324 model runs complete a queue exactly. Critical-relation recall ranges from 35.2% to 57.7%, and diagnostic runs supplied with the gold relations show substantial remaining headroom. Gains on relation groups therefore do not yet translate into dependable whole-queue governance.

Recent advances in large language models and their rapid adoption across software engineering tasks have made Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding agents an integral component of modern software development workflows. While developers increasingly benefit from these coding agents, their impact on software quality remains insufficiently understood. In particular, how agentic contributions evolve across the software development lifecycle has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to characterize agentic pull requests (PR) in comparison to human generated PRs and to examine how their properties change across different stages of the development lifecycle. Using the AIDev dataset, we first analyze how differences in merge rates between agentic and human generated PRs vary over time. We then identify the types of development tasks where AI coding agents are predominantly applied and investigate how these task distributions evolve across development quarters. Finally, we compare a set of key characteristics of agentic and human generated PRs, focusing on their implications for software quality and their temporal dynamics. Overall, our findings provide an empirical and longitudinal perspective on the role of AI coding agents in software development, offering a more nuanced understanding of their benefits and limitations in real-world practices.

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.

Agentic coding tools are increasingly used to make autonomous repository-level changes to real-world projects. Prior work has largely evaluated these contributions at the pre-merge stage, through outcomes such as pull request acceptance and review effort. Far less is known about what happens to agentic code post-merge. Yet merge success alone does not reveal whether a contribution will remain stable or require bug fixes and other corrective maintenance downstream. We conduct a longitudinal empirical analysis of agentic and human contributions across 182 repositories, tracking their post-merge fate over time, characterizing the intent of subsequent modifications, and analyzing the defects and vulnerabilities they introduce. While the overall maintenance rates are similar, agentic contributions require significantly higher rates of corrective maintenance and introduce more security weaknesses and dependency vulnerabilities. We also find statistically significant evidence that agentic maintenance burden is associated with repository characteristics. In particular, each 10 percentage-point increase in a project's no-review rate is associated with roughly a 6% increase in agentic maintenance burden on average. As coding agents become pervasive in software development, our findings highlight the need to evaluate and design agentic tools not only to produce mergeable changes, but to produce contributions that remain secure and maintainable.

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.

AI coding agents are black boxes: we cannot inspect how they generate code, but we can inspect what they change. This distinction matters for search-based software engineering (SBSE), where techniques such as genetic improvement (in the performance-optimisation application we study) depend on mutation operators that reflect how code is actually transformed. Fewer than 1% of the 33,596 agent PRs in AIDev-pop target performance, making each case a rare window into otherwise opaque agent behaviour. We classify 1,254 performance-relevant diff hunks from 216 of these PRs, spanning five agent systems, against the 18-category syntactic mutation taxonomy of Even-Mendoza et al. (2025) using a dual-LLM intersection pipeline. Three categories dominate: name modification (37.0%), object creation (26.4%), and type change (22.7%), a profile markedly different from prior GI corpora where no change accounted for 84%. Each agent's deployed system commits to a distinctive mutation vocabulary, and each performance strategy activates a largely disjoint category subset. Agent identity and target strategy are therefore informative priors that narrow the effective SBSE operator space. Replication package: https://github.com/5uper6rain/ssbse-challenge-2026

Organizations rolling out agentic command line tools like Anthropic's Claude Code and GitHub's Copilot CLI need to know who will try them, who will keep using them, and whether the tools produce enough output to justify their cost. At organizational scale, token spend can run into millions of dollars annually, so misreading adoption, retention, or impact can make a rollout expensive without changing engineering velocity. Studying tens of thousands of engineers at Microsoft over its early-2026 rollout, we find that first use spread primarily through social networks, retention was associated more with engineers' coding activity than with demographics, and adopters merged roughly 24% more pull requests than they would have otherwise. We use merged pull requests as our proxy for output -- acknowledging that a merged PR is not the same as the value it delivers -- and the lift persists across our four-month window. These results suggest that CLI coding agents are neither uniformly adopted nor mere novelty effects and that organizations should treat visible peer use as central to rollout strategy.

For predictive models, the often-reported performance metrics are the loss and accuracy. In synchronous Brain- Computer Interface (BCI) systems, these metrics are informative for most BCI paradigms; however, for Event-Related Potential (ERP) applications the spelling rate, which measures the number of characters correctly selected is more important as it influences the estimation of information transfer rate (ITR) and any related metric measuring spelling performance. Moreover, ERP-based BCIs hold imbalanced data class distributions, which require reporting metrics that can handle the imbalance, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC). In this work, we study the correlation of the spelling rate with 13 metrics to identify which among them best reflect user spelling performance and how they are affected by trial repetition. The Results of two datasets (a private LARESI ERP dataset and the public OpenBMI ERP dataset) favor the Brier score, Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), and the metrics that account for class imbalance in binary classification: ROC AUC, area under the Precision-Recall curve (PR AUC), Average Precision (AP), and partial AUC (pAUC). These findings encourage researchers and practitioners to report those metrics in ERP-based BCI experiments.

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.

We present Phoenix, a multi-agent LLM system that resolves GitHub issues from triage through pull-request creation, combining seven layered safety controls with a baseline-aware test evaluation strategy. Phoenix decomposes the work across six specialized agents. Planner, reproducer, coder, tester, failure analyst and Pull Request (PR) agent, all coordinated by a label-based GitHub webhook state machine. Every change is checked against a baseline test run before a pull request is opened. On a 24-instance slice of SWE-bench Lite. run on the production webhook path, Phoenix oracle-resolves 75% of instances with no pass-to-pass regressions on successful runs; this curated slice is not directly comparable to full-split leaderboard results, and we discuss the limits of the comparison. A complementary pilot on 42 real issues across 14 repositories yields 100% correctness preservation (CP; mean 122s on the hard tier). Manual inspection shows that about half of the resulting pull requests are well-targeted fixes. The other half place code at incorrect paths, a planner localization limitation we are addressing with retrieval. We also report the deployment failure modes (WAF filtering, token expiry, permission boundaries, flaky CI) that motivated each safety mechanism.

Autonomous coding agents now open millions of pull requests, yet large-scale studies find their PRs are produced faster but accepted less often - a coordination and trust gap that pull-request-level telemetry cannot explain. We argue the missing signal lives before the PR, in how concurrent agents claim, divide, and collide over shared work. We study this process through grite, our open-source coordination substrate that needs no central server and stores its records inside git itself, so its append-only, signed event log captures the coordination process directly. We show that (i) this shared substrate reduces duplicate and conflicting work at bounded overhead - the share of work that merely re-does a teammate's task falls from 78% to 0% while useful throughput more than triples; (ii) every agent's copy of the log converges to the same state with no write silently dropped, where a file-based tracker loses concurrent writes; and (iii) the log is a mineable artefact from which concrete failure modes - conflicting edits, lock starvation, redundant rediscovery, race-to-close - are automatically recoverable with provenance, several invisible in pull-request history. We release the dataset, harness, and mining toolkit.

AI coding agents are increasingly used to generate pull requests (PRs) that propose code fixes in software projects. From a first exploration of the AIDev dataset, we find that 46.41% of the fixes proposed by the agents Copilot, Devin, Cursor, and Claude are rejected. This represents a significant amount of wasted resources that require human reviews, verifications, and running tests and validations for fixes that are merely discarded. Our goal in this paper is to understand the failure modes of AI-agents, an understanding that is crucial for better integrating AI-agents as efficient teammates. In this paper, we conduct a qualitative study on a representative sample of 306 non-merged pull requests created or co-authored by the agents mentioned earlier, followed by a quantitative analysis of the reasons for rejection. Our qualitative findings identify 14 reasons divided into four high-level categories for rejecting AI-agent fixes. We observe that developers can reject fixes due to fixes whose implementation is incorrect (e.g., incomplete, wrong approach), fixes that do not pass the continuous integration (CI) pipelines and fail tests, fixes for which the agent is unable to perform the implementation (e.g., no code generated, sessions lost), and fixes whose priority is low. Our results shed light on the importance of better guiding the model at these levels: (1) proposing hints about the approach to follow for fixing an issue, (2) outlining constraints or limitations regarding the approaches that should not be taken, and (3) instructing the agent on how to validate the implementation through CI pipelines and without introducing a breaking change. Our results suggest the need for good prioritization of tasks so that generated fixes do not lead to wasted human review efforts or wasted agent resources (e.g., tokens, compute, or allowed number of requests).

AI-agents (e.g., GitHub Copilot) collaborate as teammates in different software engineering tasks, including code generation proposed through pull requests (Agentic-PRs). For better agent efficiency, developers create instruction files that guide the AI-agents, including how to navigate the project, locate the right components, run tests, respect best practices, and more. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the creation of these instructions and the performance of AI-agents in creating better pull requests, which have a higher chance of success (i.e., the merge rate), address more complex tasks (e.g., code churn), and require less effort to be merged (e.g., time to merge). To this end, we analyze 15,549 agentic PRs from 148 projects in the AIDev dataset. Using the three dimensions, we compare each project before and after the creation of the instruction files. We find that specifying instructions for AI-agents does not necessarily lead to better results. With the instruction files, 27.7% of the projects increased their merge rate by at least 20%, while 26.35% decreased it. The same observation is seen with the amount of changes (e.g., code churn, number of modified files) and with the efforts to merge an agentic PR (e.g., merge time and number of comments). From a first exploration, we find that projects that managed to increase their merge rate have substantially longer instruction files, which are also well structured into a higher number of sections and sub-sections. Our results motivate the need for research to assist practitioners in framing the development of instruction files as a software engineering activity (aka, \textbf{Instructions-as-Code}).

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.

Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support in code review remains fragmented, with tools focusing on isolated tasks such as reviewer recommendation, PR description generation, or comment suggestion rather than the end-to-end PR review workflow. We address this gap by treating review effectiveness as an outcome of the full code review lifecycle rather than a single stage, proposing a framework that carries context across stage boundaries. We propose a future vision for code review in which reviewers transition from manual inspectors into supervisory operators of agents. In this vision, staged, AI-powered workflows aim to align the pace of code generation with shared understanding and accountable engineering. In this paper, we review the historical evolution of code review practices, identify challenges in traditional code review systems, and examine the shift driven by large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. We then present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality gates. Our framework spans five stages: PR Creation, PR Augmentation, Reviewer Selection, AI-Assisted Code Review, and PR Retrospective, with humans retained at key decision points to preserve judgment, accountability, and team-level understanding. Finally, we identify key adoption challenges and outline research directions for evaluation, governance, and responsible human-AI collaboration.

The ecosystem of Lean and Mathlib has become the de facto standard for large language model (LLM) assisted formal reasoning with remarkable successes in recent years. Those successes, however, only consume Mathlib as an essential dependency but do not directly contribute to it. In the meantime, the growth of Mathlib has recently been bottlenecked by the review process, which requires human reviewers to judge whether proposed pull requests (PRs) follow the Mathlib's conventions and are worth integrating as part of a shared mathematical infrastructure. This leads to our central question: can LLMs help review Mathlib PRs? To this end, we introduce MathlibPR, a benchmark built from real Mathlib4 PR histories. We further propose a staged evaluation protocol and use it to evaluate both LLM models (e.g., DeepSeek, Qwen, Goedel, and Kimina) and LLM agents (e.g., Codex and Claude Code). Surprisingly, both LLM models and LLM agents struggle to distinguish merge-ready PRs from build-passing PRs that were revised or never merged. By turning Mathlib PR histories into a supervised signal, MathlibPR provides a step toward reviewer assistants and reward models that could help evaluate PRs and steer LLMs toward producing merge-ready Mathlib contributions.

We propose SWE-Universe, a scalable and efficient framework for automatically constructing real-world software engineering (SWE) verifiable environments from GitHub pull requests (PRs). To overcome the prevalent challenges of automatic building, such as low production yield, weak verifiers, and prohibitive cost, our framework utilizes a building agent powered by an efficient custom-trained model. This agent employs iterative self-verification and in-loop hacking detection to ensure the reliable generation of high-fidelity, verifiable tasks. Using this method, we scale the number of real-world multilingual SWE environments to a million scale (807,693). We demonstrate the profound value of our environments through large-scale agentic mid-training and reinforcement learning. Finally, we applied this technique to Qwen3-Max-Thinking and achieved a score of 75.3% on SWE-Bench Verified. Our work provides both a critical resource and a robust methodology to advance the next generation of coding agents.