From Conversation to Contribution: Characterizing Coding Agent in Open-Source Software

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05677v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 22:44:45 GMT
• Title: From Conversation to Contribution: Characterizing Coding Agent in Open-Source Software
• Abstract summary: We study how developers' chat-based interactions with AI relate to subsequent open-source development and collaboration.<n>We find heavier AI use in smaller, less mature, and less collaborative repositories.<n>While most developers are willing to share their chat, concerns remain around appearing incompetent.
• Score: 15.414964008939434
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI coding assistants such as GitHub Copilot and Cursor have evolved from code-suggestion tools into conversational collaborators, enabling vibe-coding workflows in which developers guide AI-generated code through natural-language dialogue. Although researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of AI coding agents and begun examining their impact on open-source development, a comprehensive understanding of how developers' chat-based interactions with AI relate to subsequent open-source development and collaboration remains limited. This hinders efforts to effectively design, evaluate, and govern AI-assisted open-source software development. To address this gap, we collected 13,360 AI conversation sessions comprising 79,172 user messages from 1,356 OSS repositories, linked them to repository development histories, and complemented this analysis with a targeted developer survey. We find heavier AI use in smaller, less mature, and less collaborative repositories. After AI adoption, projects tended to show more active contributors and lower contributor concentration (p < .001), although communication remained highly concentrated. Code Writing was the dominant chat purpose, and nearly all AI chat sessions were followed by subsequent commits. We find no broad deterioration in code-quality signals or pull request merging rates. However, developers perceive others' AI-generated code as harder to maintain than their own (p = .029) and view AI as lowering barriers to OSS contribution. While most developers (68%) are willing to share their chat, concerns remain around appearing incompetent, increasing reviewer burden, and exposing ideas to competitors. These findings provide a large-scale empirical characterization of AI-assisted OSS contribution and offer practical insights for designing and governing responsible vibe-coding practices in open-source development.

Related papers

• How Developers Discuss Generative AI: A Longitudinal Study of the Visual Studio Code Community [0.0]
  Generative AI tools such as GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and coding agents have rapidly become part of everyday software development.<n>This paper presents a longitudinal analysis of generative-AI-related discussions in the Visual Studio Code (VS Code) GitHub repository.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T03:16:08Z)
• Programming by Chat: A Large-Scale Behavioral Analysis of 11,579 Real-World AI-Assisted IDE Sessions [16.76348030799203]
  We analyze 74,998 developer messages from 11,579 chat sessions across 1,300 repositories and 899 developers using Cursor and GitHub Copilot.<n>Our findings reveal three shifts in how programming work is organized: developers iteratively refining outputs rather than specifying complete tasks upfront; developers redistribute cognitive work to AI, delegating diagnosis, comprehension, and validation rather than engaging with code and outputs directly; and developers actively manage the collaboration, externalizing plans into persistent artifacts, and negotiating AI autonomy through context injection and behavioral constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T03:30:53Z)
• Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review [3.7086626614863984]
  We compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents.<n>Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code.<n>Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T20:56:18Z)
• On Autopilot? An Empirical Study of Human-AI Teaming and Review Practices in Open Source [11.412808537439973]
  We investigated project-level guidelines and developers' interactions with AI-assisted pull requests (PRs)<n>We found that over 67.5% of AI-co-authored PRs originate from contributors without prior code ownership.<n>In contrast to human-created PRs where non-owner developers receive the most feedback, AI-co-authored PRs from non-owners receive the least.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:09:53Z)
• Embracing Trustworthy Brain-Agent Collaboration as Paradigm Extension for Intelligent Assistive Technologies [51.93721053301417]
  This paper argues that the field is poised for a paradigm extension from Brain-Computer Interfaces to Brain-Agent Collaboration.<n>We emphasize reframing agents as active and collaborative partners for intelligent assistance rather than passive brain signal data processors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-25T00:25:45Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• 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)
• The Impact of Generative AI Coding Assistants on Developers Who Are Visually Impaired [3.2895414694900684]
  We conducted a study where developers who are visually impaired completed a series of programming tasks using a generative AI coding assistant.<n>While participants found the AI assistant beneficial and reported significant advantages, they also highlighted accessibility challenges.<n>Our findings emphasize the need to apply activity-centered design principles to generative AI assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T22:06:43Z)
• OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents [109.8507367518992]
  We introduce OpenHands, a platform for the development of AI agents that interact with the world in similar ways to a human developer.<n>We describe how the platform allows for the implementation of new agents, safe interaction with sandboxed environments for code execution, and incorporation of evaluation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T17:50:43Z)
• Developer Experiences with a Contextualized AI Coding Assistant: Usability, Expectations, and Outcomes [11.520721038793285]
  This study focuses on the initial experiences of 62 participants who used a contextualized coding AI assistant -- named StackSpot AI -- in a controlled setting. Assistants' use resulted in significant time savings, easier access to documentation, and the generation of accurate codes for internal APIs. challenges associated with the knowledge sources necessary to make the coding assistant access more contextual information as well as variable responses and limitations in handling complex codes were observed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T10:52:28Z)
• The GitHub Development Workflow Automation Ecosystems [47.818229204130596]
  Large-scale software development has become a highly collaborative endeavour. This chapter explores the ecosystems of development bots and GitHub Actions. It provides an extensive survey of the state-of-the-art in this domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T15:24:23Z)
• 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.