arxiv: 2601.18341 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-26 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: no theorem link

Agentic Much? Adoption of Coding Agents on GitHub

Romain Robbes , Th\'eo Matricon , Thomas Degueule , Andre Hora , Stefano Zacchiroli

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords coding agentsGitHubadoption studysoftware engineeringlarge-scale analysispull requestscommit analysisautonomous tools

0 comments

The pith

Coding agents have been adopted in 22 to 29 percent of GitHub projects within months of emergence.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper conducts the first large-scale study of coding agent adoption on GitHub by examining traces left in commits and pull requests across 128,018 projects. It finds an adoption rate of 22.20 to 28.66 percent, which is high for a technology only a few months old and still rising. Adoption spans projects of all maturity levels, established organizations, and diverse programming languages and topics. Agent-assisted commits prove larger than human-only ones and contain a high share of features and bug fixes. These patterns indicate that autonomous coding tools are integrating into everyday development work and will require further scrutiny of their practical effects.

Core claim

We leverage explicit traces such as co-authoring commits or pull requests to present the first large-scale study of 128,018 projects, finding an estimated adoption rate of 22.20%--28.66% for coding agents, which is very high for a technology only a few months old and increasing. Adoption is broad across project maturity, established organizations, and diverse languages or topics. Commits assisted by coding agents are larger than those authored only by humans and have a large proportion of features and bug fixes.

What carries the argument

Explicit traces in software engineering artifacts, such as co-authoring commits or pull requests, used to identify coding agent usage.

If this is right

Adoption spans the entire spectrum of project maturity.
It includes established organizations.
It concerns diverse programming languages or project topics.
Commits assisted by coding agents are larger than those authored only by humans.
These assisted commits contain a large proportion of features and bug fixes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Review processes may need to adapt to handle larger, agent-generated changes.
Development workflows could shift toward higher-level task descriptions rather than line-by-line editing.
Software engineering education may require new emphasis on supervising and integrating agent outputs.
Longitudinal tracking could reveal whether adoption stabilizes or accelerates further.

Load-bearing premise

That explicit traces such as co-authoring commits or pull requests reliably and comprehensively identify coding agent usage without substantial false positives or negatives from other tools or manual attribution.

What would settle it

A manual audit of a random sample of flagged projects that finds no evidence of actual coding agent use, or a sample of non-flagged projects that reveals widespread hidden agent activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18341 by Andre Hora, Romain Robbes, Stefano Zacchiroli, Th\'eo Matricon, Thomas Degueule.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Typical workflow of a coding agent 2 Background 2.1 Coding Agents The agentic loop. We use the following definition for coding agents: a coding agent is a LLM running in a loop with tool access that aims to complete a given goal. The tools enable the LLMs to have rich interactions with its environment. The LLM loop, which we call agent loop, is simple: the LLM proposes a solution, it gets feedback and then… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Evolution of the number of AI coding agents since 2022 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Pairwise relations of file and commit level adoption metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Topics of GitHub projects showing file-based evidence of the adoption of coding agents, for topics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Commit Ratio distribution by topic of commit-level adopters projects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Commit Ratio distribution by programming language of commit-level adopters projects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cumulative adoption of any tool across all 10 344 projects from 2025-01-01 to 2025-11-03. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Ridgeline plot showing adoption patterns for the top 48 tools, with Claude_Code being the most [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: UpSet plot showing tool co-adoption patterns among 14 tools with at least 30 projects per intersection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Adoption patterns across 7 952 organizations, with microsoft leading at 251 adoptions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Distribution for commit size in terms of lines and files by type of contribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Comparison between the frequency among size cetegories of human-authored and AI-assisted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In the first half of 2025, coding agents have emerged as a category of development tools that have very quickly transitioned to the practice. Unlike ''traditional'' code completion LLMs such as Copilot, agents like Cursor, Claude Code, or Codex operate with high degrees of autonomy, up to generating complete pull requests starting from a developer-provided task description. This new mode of operation is poised to change the landscape in an even larger way than code completion LLMs did, making the need to study their impact critical. Also, unlike traditional LLMs, coding agents tend to leave more explicit traces in software engineering artifacts, such as co-authoring commits or pull requests. We leverage these traces to present the first large-scale study (128,018 projects) of the adoption of coding agents on GitHub, finding an estimated adoption rate of 22.20%--28.66%, which is very high for a technology only a few months old--and increasing. We carry out an in-depth study of the adopters we identified, finding that adoption is broad: it spans the entire spectrum of project maturity; it includes established organizations; and it concerns diverse programming languages or project topics. At the commit level, we find that commits assisted by coding agents are larger than commits only authored by human developers, and have a large proportion of features and bug fixes. These findings highlight the need for further investigation into the practical use of coding agents.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's headline is a first large-scale count of coding agent traces in 22-29% of 128k GitHub projects, but the detection rules are not validated.

read the letter

This paper reports the first big empirical measurement of coding agent adoption on GitHub. They scanned 128,018 projects and put the rate at 22.20% to 28.66% based on visible traces like co-authored commits and pull requests. That number is the main new thing, and it is high for tools that only appeared a few months earlier. The work also shows adoption is not limited to small or experimental projects: it reaches established organizations, covers a range of languages, and appears across project topics. At the commit level, the agent-linked changes are larger than human-only ones and skew toward features and bug fixes rather than minor edits. Those patterns give some concrete sense of how the tools are being used in real workflows. The soft spot is the identification step. The abstract relies on explicit traces but does not spell out the exact rules, keyword lists, or commit patterns used to flag agent activity. There is no mention of precision checks, manual audits, or tests against ground truth. That leaves the percentage open to shifts if the method catches other bots or scripted commits, or if it misses agent work that leaves no clear co-author mark. The central claim therefore rests on an untested heuristic. This is worth reading for anyone tracking how AI coding tools are actually landing in open source. The scale is useful even with the method questions. I would send it to peer review. The data collection is substantial and the questions are timely, but the authors will need to document and validate their detection rules before the numbers can be treated as reliable.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first large-scale study of coding agent adoption on GitHub, analyzing explicit traces (such as co-authored commits and pull requests) across 128,018 projects to estimate an adoption rate of 22.20%–28.66% in the first half of 2025. It characterizes adopters as spanning project maturity levels, established organizations, and diverse languages/topics, and reports that agent-assisted commits are larger than human-only commits with a higher proportion of features and bug fixes.

Significance. If the trace-identification method proves reliable, the work supplies a valuable early baseline on the rapid uptake of autonomous coding agents, leveraging a large sample size and direct GitHub artifacts. The broad adoption findings and commit-level differences (size, content type) offer concrete observations that could guide subsequent empirical SE research on AI tooling impact.

major comments (1)

[Abstract and methods section describing trace identification] The central adoption-rate estimate (22.20%–28.66%) rests on identification of 'explicit traces' such as co-authoring commits or PRs, yet the precise detection rules (keyword lists, commit-message patterns, co-author fields, or sampling strategy) are not specified, and no precision/recall figures or manual ground-truth audit are reported. This directly affects the validity of the headline percentage and the claim of 'very high' adoption for a months-old technology.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states the study covers 'the first half of 2025' but does not list the exact months or data-collection cutoff; adding this would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the significance of this early baseline study on coding agent adoption. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve methodological transparency.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central adoption-rate estimate (22.20%–28.66%) rests on identification of 'explicit traces' such as co-authoring commits or PRs, yet the precise detection rules (keyword lists, commit-message patterns, co-author fields, or sampling strategy) are not specified, and no precision/recall figures or manual ground-truth audit are reported. This directly affects the validity of the headline percentage and the claim of 'very high' adoption for a months-old technology.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript provides only a high-level overview of the trace-identification process and that greater detail is needed for reproducibility and to substantiate the adoption-rate claims. In the revised version we will expand the methods section to explicitly list the keyword patterns used for commit messages and PR descriptions, the exact co-author field matching rules, the criteria for identifying agent-assisted commits versus PRs, and the full sampling strategy applied to the 128,018 projects. We will also perform a manual ground-truth audit on a stratified random sample of the detected traces, compute precision and recall, and report these figures together with the revised adoption-rate estimates. These additions will directly address the concern about the reliability of the 22.20%–28.66% range. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: adoption rate is a direct empirical count from observed GitHub traces.

full rationale

The paper's main result is an adoption rate of 22.20%–28.66% obtained by counting the proportion of 128,018 projects that exhibit explicit traces (co-authoring commits or pull requests). This is a straightforward observational tally with no equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes invoked to derive the percentage; the figure is literally the ratio of detected projects to the total corpus. No load-bearing step reduces to a prior result by construction, and the study is self-contained as an empirical measurement against external GitHub artifacts.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that commit co-authorship traces are a valid proxy for agent adoption; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond this domain assumption.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Commit and pull-request co-authorship traces accurately reflect coding agent involvement
The study treats these traces as direct evidence of agent use without additional validation steps described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1089 out tokens · 43421 ms · 2026-05-16T10:55:39.866865+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

A Dataset of Agentic AI Coding Tool Configurations
cs.SE 2026-05 accept novelty 8.0

A publicly released dataset of 15,591 configuration artifacts for five agentic AI coding tools, drawn from 4,738 GitHub repositories along with associated files and AI-co-authored commits.
Architecture Without Architects: How AI Coding Agents Shape Software Architecture
cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

AI coding agents perform vibe architecting by making prompt-driven architectural choices that produce structurally different systems for identical tasks.
A Large-Scale Empirical Study of AI-Generated Code in Real-World Repositories
cs.SE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

A large-scale study of real-world repositories finds that AI-generated code differs from human-written code in complexity, structural traits, defect indicators, and commit-level activity patterns.
Code Review Agent Benchmark
cs.SE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

c-CRAB benchmark shows state-of-the-art code review agents solve only around 40% of tasks derived from human reviews, suggesting potential for human-AI collaboration.
ORBIT: Guided Agentic Orchestration for Autonomous C-to-Rust Transpilation
cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

ORBIT achieves 100% compilation success and 91.7% test success on 24 mostly large programs from CRUST-Bench by using dependency-aware orchestration and iterative verification, outperforming prior static and baseline tools.
The Buy-or-Build Decision, Revisited: How Agentic AI Changes the Economics of Enterprise Software
cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Agentic AI transforms in-house software development into a hybrid governance model but does not overturn the advantages of buying SaaS for most enterprise application categories.
Tokalator: A Context Engineering Toolkit for Artificial Intelligence Coding Assistants
cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Tokalator is a toolkit with VS Code extension, calculators, and community resources to monitor and optimize token usage in AI coding environments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

[1]

2025.Anthropic Economic Index: Uneven Geographic and Enterprise AI Adoption

Anthropic. 2025.Anthropic Economic Index: Uneven Geographic and Enterprise AI Adoption. Technical Report. Anthropic PBC. https://assets.anthropic.com/m/218c82b858610fac/original/Economic-Index.pdf Report, 15 Sept 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Owura Asare, Meiyappan Nagappan, and N Asokan. 2023. A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilot.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06587(2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[3]

Shraddha Barke, Michael B James, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2023. Grounded copilot: How programmers interact with code-generating models.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages7, OOPSLA1 (2023), 85–111

work page 2023
[4]

Joel Becker, Nate Rush, Elizabeth Barnes, and David Rein. 2025. Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09089(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

Christian Bird, Peter C Rigby, Earl T Barr, David J Hamilton, Daniel M German, and Prem Devanbu. 2009. The promises and perils of mining git. In2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 1–10

work page 2009
[6]

Islem Bouzenia and Michael Pradel. 2025. Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action- Result Trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18824(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Jimenez, John Yang, Leyton Ho, Tejal Patwardhan, Kevin Liu, and Aleksander Madry

Neil Chowdhury, James Aung, Chan Jun Shern, Oliver Jaffe, Dane Sherburn, Giulio Starace, Evan Mays, Rachel Dias, Marwan Aljubeh, Mia Glaese, Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Leyton Ho, Tejal Patwardhan, Kevin Liu, and Aleksander Madry. 2024. Introducing SWE-bench Verified. https://openai.com/index/introducing-swe-bench-verified/

work page 2024
[8]

William G. Cochran. 1977.Sampling Techniques(3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York

work page 1977
[9]

Roberto Di Cosmo and Stefano Zacchiroli. 2017. Software Heritage: Why and How to Preserve Software Source Code. InProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPRES 2017). ACM, 1–10. doi:10.1145/ nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn

work page 2017
[10]

Ozren Dabic, Emad Aghajani, and Gabriele Bavota. 2021. Sampling projects in github for MSR studies. In2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 560–564

work page 2021
[11]

Michael W Godfrey and Lijie Zou. 2005. Using origin analysis to detect merging and splitting of source code entities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering31, 2 (2005), 166–181

work page 2005
[12]

Leo A Goodman. 1965. On simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions.Technometrics7, 2 (1965), 247–254

work page 1965
[13]

William Harding. 2025. AI Copilot Code Quality: Evaluating 2024’s Increased Defect Rate via Code Quality Metrics. https://www.gitclear.com/ai_assistant_code_quality_2025_research Accessed on October 13th, 2025

work page 2025
[14]

William Harding and Matthew Kloster. 2024. Coding on Copilot: 2023 Data Suggests Downward Pressure on Code Qual- ity. https://www.gitclear.com/coding_on_copilot_data_shows_ais_downward_pressure_on_code_quality Accessed on 03 24, 2024

work page 2024
[15]

Hao He, Courtney Miller, Shyam Agarwal, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2025. Speed at the Cost of Quality? The Impact of LLM Agent Assistance on Software Development.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04427(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Andre Hora, Danilo Silva, Marco Tulio Valente, and Romain Robbes. 2018. Assessing the threat of untracked changes in software evolution. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1102–1113

work page 2018
[17]

Saki Imai. 2022. Is github copilot a substitute for human pair-programming? an empirical study. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings. 319–321

work page 2022
[18]

Maliheh Izadi, Jonathan Katzy, Tim Van Dam, Marc Otten, Razvan Mihai Popescu, and Arie Van Deursen. 2024. Language models for code completion: A practical evaluation. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1–13

work page 2024
[19]

Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R

Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. 2024. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net

work page 2024
[20]

Aayush Kumar, Yasharth Bajpai, Sumit Gulwani, Gustavo Soares, and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2025. Sharp Tools: How Developers Wield Agentic AI in Real Software Engineering Tasks.arXiv e-prints(2025), arXiv–2506

work page 2025
[21]

Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, et al. 2025. Measuring ai ability to complete long tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14499(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Alexander Lex, Nils Gehlenborg, Hendrik Strobelt, Romain Vuillemot, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2014. UpSet: Visualization of intersecting sets.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics20, 12 (2014), 1983–1992. doi:10.1109/ TVCG.2014.2346248 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2026. Agentic Much? Adoption of Coding Agents on GitHub 43

work page arXiv 2014
[23]

Hao Li, Haoxiang Zhang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2025. AIDev: Studying AI Coding Agents on GitHub. https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16919051. Accessed 2025-10-21

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16919051 2025
[24]

Jenny T Liang, Chenyang Yang, and Brad A Myers. 2024. A large-scale survey on the usability of ai programming assis- tants: Successes and challenges. InProceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering. 1–13

work page 2024
[25]

Seyedmoein Mohsenimofidi, Matthias Galster, Christoph Treude, and Sebastian Baltes. 2025. Context Engineering for AI Agents in Open-Source Software.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21413(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Hussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, and Eric Horvitz. 2022. Reading between the lines: Modeling user behavior and costs in AI-assisted programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14306(2022)

work page arXiv 2022
[27]

Vijayaraghavan Murali, Chandra Maddila, Imad Ahmad, Michael Bolin, Daniel Cheng, Negar Ghorbani, Renuka Fernandez, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2023. CodeCompose: A large-scale industrial deployment of AI-assisted code authoring.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12050(2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[28]

Nachiappan Nagappan and Thomas Ball. 2005. Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density. InProceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering. 284–292

work page 2005
[29]

What the data really shows about AI coding tools in 2025

Addy Osmani. 2025. The reality of AI-Assisted software engineering productivity. Substack blog post. https: //addyo.substack.com/p/the-reality-of-ai-assisted-software-engineering-productivity “What the data really shows about AI coding tools in 2025. ”

work page 2025
[30]

Sida Peng, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Peter Cihon, and Mert Demirer. 2023. The impact of ai on developer productivity: Evidence from github copilot.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06590(2023)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[31]

Neil Perry, Megha Srivastava, Deepak Kumar, and Dan Boneh. 2023. Do users write more insecure code with AI assistants?. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2785–2799

work page 2023
[32]

Romain Robbes, Théo Matricon, Thomas Degueule, Andre Hora, and Stefano Zacchiroli. 2025. Promises, Perils, and (Timely) Heuristics for Mining Coding Agent Activity.Under submission(2025)

work page 2025
[33]

G Rupert Jr et al. 2012. Simultaneous statistical inference. (2012)

work page 2012
[34]

Gustavo Sandoval, Hammond Pearce, Teo Nys, Ramesh Karri, Siddharth Garg, and Brendan Dolan-Gavitt. 2023. Lost at c: A user study on the security implications of large language model code assistants. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23). 2205–2222

work page 2023
[35]

Klaas-Jan Stol and Brian Fitzgerald. 2018. The ABC of software engineering research.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)27, 3 (2018), 1–51

work page 2018
[36]

Rosalia Tufano, Antonio Mastropaolo, Federica Pepe, Ozren Dabić, Massimiliano Di Penta, and Gabriele Bavota. 2024. Unveiling ChatGPT’s Usage in Open Source Projects: A Mining-based Study.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16480(2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

A small, intense, word-sized graphic with typographic resolution

Edward R. Tufte. 2004. Sparkline Theory and Practice. Online article. https://www.edwardtufte.com/notebook/ sparkline-theory-and-practice-edward-tufte/ “A small, intense, word-sized graphic with typographic resolution. ”

work page 2004
[38]

Priyan Vaithilingam, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. Expectation vs. experience: Evaluating the usability of code generation tools powered by large language models. InChi conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. 1–7

work page 2022
[39]

Ruotong Wang, Ruijia Cheng, Denae Ford, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2023. Investigating and designing for trust in ai-powered code generation tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11248(2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[40]

Solved Issues

You Wang, Michael Pradel, and Zhongxin Liu. 2025. Are" Solved Issues" in SWE-bench Really Solved Correctly? An Empirical Study.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15223(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yinlin Deng, Soren Dunn, and Lingming Zhang. 2024. Agentless: Demystifying llm-based software engineering agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01489(2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[42]

Tao Xiao, Youmei Fan, Fabio Calefato, Christoph Treude, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Hideaki Hata, and Sebastian Baltes

work page
[43]

Self-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Software

Self-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Software.CoRRabs/2507.10422 (2025). arXiv:2507.10422 doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.2507.10422

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[44]

Qunhong Zeng, Yuxia Zhang, Zhiqing Qiu, and Hui Liu. 2025. A First Look at Conventional Commits Classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2277–2289

work page 2025
[45]

Yuntong Zhang, Haifeng Ruan, Zhiyu Fan, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2024. Autocoderover: Autonomous program improvement. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 1592–1604

work page 2024
[46]

Albert Ziegler, Eirini Kalliamvakou, X Alice Li, Andrew Rice, Devon Rifkin, Shawn Simister, Ganesh Sittampalam, and Edward Aftandilian. 2022. Productivity assessment of neural code completion. InProceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Machine Programming. 21–29. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: January 2026

work page 2022