AI builds, We Analyze: An Empirical Study of AI-Generated Build Code Quality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16839v1
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 15:40:28 GMT
• Title: AI builds, We Analyze: An Empirical Study of AI-Generated Build Code Quality
• Abstract summary: The rapid adoption of AI coding agents for software development has raised important questions about the quality and maintainability of the code they produce.<n>This data mining challenge focuses on AIDev, the first large-scale, openly available dataset capturing agent-pull requests from real-world GitHub repositories.<n>We identified 364 maintainability and security-related build smells across varying severity levels, indicating that AI-generated build code can introduce quality issues.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid adoption of AI coding agents for software development has raised important questions about the quality and maintainability of the code they produce. While prior studies have examined AI-generated source code, the impact of AI coding agents on build systems-a critical yet understudied component of the software lifecycle-remains largely unexplored. This data mining challenge focuses on AIDev, the first large-scale, openly available dataset capturing agent-authored pull requests (Agentic-PRs) from real-world GitHub repositories. Our paper leverages this dataset to investigate (RQ1) whether AI coding agents generate build code with quality issues (e.g., code smells), (RQ2) to what extent AI agents can eliminate code smells from build code, and (RQ3) to what extent Agentic-PRs are accepted by developers. We identified 364 maintainability and security-related build smells across varying severity levels, indicating that AI-generated build code can introduce quality issues-such as lack of error handling, and hardcoded paths or URLs-while also, in some cases, removing existing smells through refactorings (e.g., Pull Up Module and Externalize Properties). Notably, more than 61\% of Agentic-PRs are approved and merged with minimal human intervention. This dual impact underscores the need for future research on AI-aware build code quality assessment to systematically evaluate, guide, and govern AI-generated build systems code.

Related papers

• On Automated and Explainable Provenance of AI-Generated Code [56.818202904805446]
  We argue that the next generation of CodeGenAI tools must be built on a foundation of explainable provenance.<n>We describe a research program combining large-scale empirical studies with post-hoc causal and interpretability techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T14:50:31Z)
• LLMoxie: Exploring Agentic AI for Scientific Software Development [0.2708918306110244]
  Report on twenty months of practice at a university-based research software engineering (RSE) center, where RSEs embedded across astronomy, earth and climate science, agriculture, and health projects worked to close this gap.<n>We describe the recurring infrastructure, governance, and process challenges of adopting Agentic AI inside a multi-domain RSE center, describe the platform and plugin design, and distill operational lessons from real scientific software deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T18:46:27Z)
• FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI [51.64618567247884]
  Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety.<n>Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders.<n>We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators.<n>We introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T12:27:09Z)
• When is Generated Code Difficult to Comprehend? Assessing AI Agent Python Code Proficiency in the Wild [1.5432419759274403]
  This study investigates the code proficiency of AI agents to determine the skill level required for developers to maintain their code.<n>We mined 591 pull requests containing 5,027 Python files generated by three distinct AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T22:49:44Z)
• Debt Behind the AI Boom: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of AI-Generated Code in the Wild [13.35459155979355]
  We build a dataset of 304,362 verified AI-authored commits from 6,275 GitHub repositories.<n>We identify 484,606 distinct issues, and that code smells are by far the most common type, accounting for 89.1% of all issues.<n>These findings show that AI-generated code can introduce long-term maintenance costs into real software projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T15:38:05Z)
• SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks [55.76734816061826]
  We introduce SlopCodeBench, a language-agnostic benchmark comprising 20 problems and 93 checkpoints.<n>We track two trajectory-level quality signals: verbosity, the fraction of redundant or duplicated code, and structural erosion.<n>No agent solves any problem end-to-end across 11 models; the highest checkpoint solve rate is 17.2%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T19:26:44Z)
• AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development [12.50615284537175]
  Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly act as autonomous contributors that generate and merge pull requests.<n>We present a longitudinal causal study of agent adoption in open-source repositories using staggered difference-in-differences with matched controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T04:51:56Z)
• AI Code in the Wild: Measuring Security Risks and Ecosystem Shifts of AI-Generated Code in Modern Software [12.708926174194199]
  We present the first large-scale empirical study of AI-generated code (AIGCode) in the wild.<n>We build a high-precision detection pipeline and a benchmark to distinguish AIGCode from human-written code.<n>This lets us label commits, files, and functions along a human/AI axis and trace how AIGCode moves through projects and vulnerability life cycles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T02:26:29Z)
• Toward Training Superintelligent Software Agents through Self-Play SWE-RL [66.11447353341926]
  Self-play SWE-RL is a first step toward training paradigms for superintelligent software agents.<n>Our approach takes minimal data assumptions, only requiring access to sandboxed repositories with source code and installed dependencies.<n>Our results, albeit early, suggest a path where agents autonomously gather extensive learning experiences from real-world software repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T00:49:40Z)
• A Causal Perspective on Measuring, Explaining and Mitigating Smells in LLM-Generated Code [49.09545217453401]
  Propensity Smelly Score (PSC) is a metric that estimates the likelihood of generating particular smell types.<n>We identify how generation strategy, model size, model architecture and prompt formulation shape the structural properties of generated code.<n> PSC helps developers interpret model behavior and assess code quality, providing evidence that smell propensity signals can support human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T19:18:28Z)
• Human-Written vs. AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Study of Defects, Vulnerabilities, and Complexity [4.478789600295493]
  We present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder.<n>Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weaknession.<n>We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T13:51:28Z)
• Cognitive Kernel-Pro: A Framework for Deep Research Agents and Agent Foundation Models Training [67.895981259683]
  General AI Agents are increasingly recognized as foundational frameworks for the next generation of artificial intelligence.<n>Current agent systems are either closed-source or heavily reliant on a variety of paid APIs and proprietary tools.<n>We present Cognitive Kernel-Pro, a fully open-source and (to the maximum extent) free multi-module agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T08:11:31Z)
• Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [60.04362496037186]
  We present the first controlled study of developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants.<n>Our results show agents can assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
• R&D-Agent: An LLM-Agent Framework Towards Autonomous Data Science [70.1638335489284]
  High-level machine learning engineering tasks remain labor-intensive and iterative.<n>We introduce R&D-Agent, a comprehensive, decoupled, and framework that formalizes the machine learning process.<n>R&D-Agent defines the MLE into two phases and six components, turning agent design for MLE into a principled, testable process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T06:07:00Z)
• RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agents [50.81206098588923]
  RedCode is a benchmark for risky code execution and generation. RedCode-Exec provides challenging prompts that could lead to risky code execution. RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T13:30:06Z)
• An Empirical Study on Automatically Detecting AI-Generated Source Code: How Far Are We? [8.0988059417354]
  We propose a range of approaches to improve the performance of AI-generated code detection. Our best model outperforms state-of-the-art AI-generated code detector (GPTSniffer) and achieves an F1 score of 82.55.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T22:48:18Z)
• Evaluating Software Development Agents: Patch Patterns, Code Quality, and Issue Complexity in Real-World GitHub Scenarios [13.949319911378826]
  This study evaluated 4,892 patches from 10 top-ranked agents on 500 real-world GitHub issues.<n>No single agent dominated, with 170 issues unresolved, indicating room for improvement.<n>Most agents maintained code reliability and security, avoiding new bugs or vulnerabilities.<n>Some agents increased code complexity, many reduced code duplication and minimized code smells.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T11:33:57Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.