Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27524v1
• Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2026 05:15:13 GMT
• Title: Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs
• Abstract summary: We conduct a comparative analysis of 7,191 agent-generated PRs with 1402 human-authored PRs from Python repositories.<n>We show that AI agents introduce fewer breaking changes overall than humans (3.45% vs. 7.40%) in code generation tasks.<n>Agents exhibit substantially higher risk during maintenance tasks, with changes introducing breaking changes at rates of 6.72% and 9.35%, respectively.
• Score: 0.991629944808926
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly integrated into modern software engineering workflows, actively collaborating with human developers to create pull requests (PRs) in open-source repositories. Although coding agents improve developer productivity, they often generate code with more bugs and security issues than human-authored code. While human-authored PRs often break backward compatibility, leading to breaking changes, the potential for agentic PRs to introduce breaking changes remains underexplored. The goal of this paper is to help developers and researchers evaluate the reliability of AI-generated PRs by examining the frequency and task contexts in which AI agents introduce breaking changes. We conduct a comparative analysis of 7,191 agent-generated PRs with 1402 human-authored PRs from Python repositories in the AIDev dataset. We develop a tool that analyzes code changes in commits corresponding to the agentic PRs and leverages an abstract syntax tree (AST) based analysis to detect potential breaking changes. Our findings show that AI agents introduce fewer breaking changes overall than humans (3.45% vs. 7.40%) in code generation tasks. However, agents exhibit substantially higher risk during maintenance tasks, with refactoring and chore changes introducing breaking changes at rates of 6.72% and 9.35%, respectively. We also identify a "Confidence Trap" where highly confident agentic PRs still introduce breaking changes, indicating the need for stricter review during maintenance oriented changes regardless of reported confidence score.

Related papers

• Quality and Security Signals in AI-Generated Python Refactoring Pull Requests [0.0]
  We conduct an empirical study of Python pull requests (PRs) from the AIDev dataset.<n>We analyze agentic PRs using PyQu, an ML-based quality assessment tool for Python.<n>Our results show that, on average, agentic commits improve a quality attribute in 22.5% of the studied changes.<n>At the same time, 24.17% of modified files introduce new Pylint issues predominantly convention level violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T17:43:36Z)
• SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild [70.18158706281724]
  SWE-chat is the first large-scale dataset of real coding agent sessions collected from open-source developers in the wild.<n>The dataset currently contains 6,000 sessions, comprising more than 63,000 user prompts and 355,000 agent tool calls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T17:08:19Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice [4.359007050137919]
  We introduce a taxonomy to characterize the intent of agent-authored PR references across Human-to-Agent and Agent-to-Agent interactions.<n>Our analysis shows that while humans initiate most references to agent-authored PRs, a substantial portion of these interactions are AI-assisted.<n>We find that referencing/referenced PRs are associated with substantially longer lifespan and review times compared to isolated PRs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:04:46Z)
• Dynamic analysis enhances issue resolution [53.50448142467294]
  DAIRA (Dynamic Analysis-enhanced Issue Resolution Agent) is an automated repair framework that embeds dynamic analysis into the agent's reasoning cycle.<n> Driven by a Test Tracing-Driven methodology, DAIRA utilizes lightweight monitors to extract critical runtime data.<n>When powered by Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DAIRA establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, achieving a 79.4% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T14:48:54Z)
• Why Are AI Agent Involved Pull Requests (Fix-Related) Remain Unmerged? An Empirical Study [5.127121704630949]
  We analyze 8,106 fix related PRs authored by five widely used AI coding agents from the AIDEV POP dataset.<n>Our results indicate that test case failures and prior resolution of the same issues by other PRs are the most common causes of non integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T22:06:58Z)
• Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents [4.744786007044749]
  We study how core and peripheral developers use, review, modify, and verify agent-generated contributions prior to acceptance.<n>A subset of peripheral developers use agents more often, delegating tasks evenly across bug fixing, feature addition, documentation, and testing.<n>In contrast, core developers focus more on documentation and testing, yet their agentic PRs are frequently merged into the main/master branch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T22:50:01Z)
• How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze 24,014 merged Agentic PRs (440,295 commits) and 5,081 merged Human PRs (23,242 commits)<n>Agentic PRs differ substantially from Human PRs in commit count (Cliff's $= 0.5429$) and show moderate differences in files touched and deleted lines.<n>These findings provide a large-scale empirical characterization of how AI coding agents contribute to open source development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T20:27:04Z)
• Security in the Age of AI Teammates: An Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests on GitHub [4.409447722044799]
  This study aims to characterize how autonomous coding agents contribute to software security in practice.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of agent-authored PRs using the AIDev dataset.<n>We then analyze prevalence, acceptance outcomes, and review latency across autonomous agents, programming ecosystems, and types of code changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-01T21:14:11Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Impatient Users Confuse AI Agents: High-fidelity Simulations of Human Traits for Testing Agents [58.00130492861884]
  TraitBasis is a lightweight, model-agnostic method for systematically stress testing AI agents.<n>TraitBasis learns directions in activation space corresponding to steerable user traits.<n>We observe on average a 2%-30% performance degradation on $tau$-Trait across frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T05:03:57Z)
• 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)
• Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents [70.2077308846307]
  We manually create 200 targeted adversarial tasks and evaluation scripts in a realistic threat model on top of VisualWebArena.<n>We find that we can successfully break latest agents that use black-box frontier LMs, including those that perform reflection and tree search.<n>We also use ARE to rigorously evaluate how the robustness changes as new components are added.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T17:32:48Z)

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.