An Empirical Study on Developers Shared Conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub Pull Requests and Issues
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
ChatGPT has significantly impacted software development practices, providing substantial assistance to developers in a variety of tasks, including coding, testing, and debugging. Despite its widespread adoption, the impact of ChatGPT as an assistant in collaborative coding remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we analyze a dataset of 210 and 370 developers shared conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub pull requests (PRs) and issues. We manually examined the content of the conversations and characterized the dynamics of the sharing behavior, i.e., understanding the rationale behind the sharing, identifying the locations where the conversations were shared, and determining the roles of the developers who shared them. Our main observations are: (1) Developers seek ChatGPT assistance across 16 types of software engineering inquiries. In both conversations shared in PRs and issues, the most frequently encountered inquiry categories include code generation, conceptual questions, how-to guides, issue resolution, and code review. (2) Developers frequently engage with ChatGPT via multi-turn conversations where each prompt can fulfill various roles, such as unveiling initial or new tasks, iterative follow-up, and prompt refinement. Multi-turn conversations account for 33.2% of the conversations shared in PRs and 36.9% in issues. (3) In collaborative coding, developers leverage shared conversations with ChatGPT to facilitate their role-specific contributions, whether as authors of PRs or issues, code reviewers, or collaborators on issues. Our work serves as the first step towards understanding the dynamics between developers and ChatGPT in collaborative software development and opens up new directions for future research on the topic.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Mar 2024.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 4.
9 papers.
- 2025A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languagescited by 20
- 2025Do LLMs Consider Security? An Empirical Study on Responses to Programming Questionscited by 9
- 2025From Prompts to Propositions: A Logic-Based Lens on Student-LLM Interactionscited by 4
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineeringcited by 4
- 2026Why Agentic-PRs Get Rejected: A Comparative Study of Coding Agentscited by 4
- 2024A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating API-oriented Code Generation in Large Language Modelscited by 2
- 2026What Software Engineering Looks Like to AI Agents? -- An Empirical Study of AI-Only Technical Discourse on MoltBookcited by 0
- 2026SWE-Journey: Towards More Realistic Evaluation of Coding Assistants through Long-Horizon, Multi-Turn Interactioncited by 0
- 2026Why Agentic Workflows Fail: A Taxonomy Derived from Literature and Empirical Datacited by 0
- 2026Why Agentic Workflows Fail: A Taxonomy Derived from Literature and Empirical Data12 Oct 2026
- 2026SWE-Journey: Towards More Realistic Evaluation of Coding Assistants through Long-Horizon, Multi-Turn Interaction8 Oct 2026
- 2026What Software Engineering Looks Like to AI Agents? -- An Empirical Study of AI-Only Technical Discourse on MoltBook8 May 2026
- 2026Why Agentic-PRs Get Rejected: A Comparative Study of Coding Agents4 Feb 2026
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering15 Aug 2025
- 2025From Prompts to Propositions: A Logic-Based Lens on Student-LLM Interactions25 Apr 2025
- 2025A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languages21 Mar 2025
- 2025Do LLMs Consider Security? An Empirical Study on Responses to Programming Questions20 Feb 2025
- 2024A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating API-oriented Code Generation in Large Language Models23 Sep 2024