# AgentPack: A Dataset of Code Changes, Co-Authored by Agents and Humans

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21891 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21891/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 20 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [Training Software Engineering Agents and Verifiers with SWE-Gym](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21139/) (2024)
- [Demonstrate-Search-Predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.14024/) (2022)
- [SWE-RL: Advancing LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning on Open Software Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18449/) (2025)
- [Magicoder: Empowering Code Generation with OSS-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02120/) (2023)
- [RLEF: Grounding Code LLMs in Execution Feedback with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02089/) (2024)
- [OpenCodeReasoning: Advancing Data Distillation for Competitive Coding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01943/) (2025)
- [ACECODER: Acing Coder RL via Automated Test-Case Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01718/) (2025)
- [SelfCodeAlign: Self-Alignment for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.24198/) (2024)
- [Can It Edit? Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Follow Code Editing Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.12450/) (2023)
- [Knowledge Transfer from High-Resource to Low-Resource Programming Languages for Code LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09895/) (2023)
- [Multi-Turn Code Generation Through Single-Step Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20380/) (2025)
- [Detecting and Characterizing Bots that Commit Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.03172/) (2020)
- [Agnostics: Learning to Code in Any Programming Language via Reinforcement with a Universal Learning Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.04865/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Code Change Characteristics and Description Alignment: A Comparative Study of Agentic versus Human Pull Requests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17627/) (2026)
- [A Dataset of Agentic AI Coding Tool Configurations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.08435/) (2026)
- [AtomicCommitBench: Can Coding Agents Reconstruct Commit Histories from Squashed Patches?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03332/) (2026)
- [Rule Taxonomy and Evolution in AI IDEs: A Mining and Survey Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12231/) (2026)
- [JANUS: Foreseeing Latent Risk for Long-Horizon Agent Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.19913/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Fine-tuning large language models for code editing has typically relied on mining commits and pull requests. The working hypothesis has been that commit messages describe human intent in natural language, and patches to code describe the changes that implement that intent. However, much of the previously collected data is noisy: commit messages are terse, human-written commits commingle several unrelated edits, and many commits come from simple, rule-based bots. The recent adoption of software engineering agents changes this landscape. Code changes co-authored by humans and agents are often accompanied by substantially more explicit natural-language descriptions of intent and rationale. Moreover, when these changes land in public repositories, they are implicitly filtered by humans: maintainers discard low-quality commits to their projects. We present AgentPack, a corpus of 1.8M code edits co-authored by Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, and Cursor Agent across public GitHub projects up to early October 2025. We describe the identification and curation pipeline, quantify adoption trends of these agents, and analyze the structural properties of the edits. Finally, we show that models fine-tuned on AgentPack can outperform models trained on prior human-only commit corpora, highlighting the potential of using public data from software engineering agents to train future code-editing models.