A Study of Library Usage in Agent-Authored Pull Requests
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Coding agents are becoming increasingly capable of completing end-to-end software engineering workflows that previously required a human developer, including raising pull requests (PRs) to propose their changes. However, we still know little about how these agents use libraries when generating code, a core part of real-world software development. To fill this gap, we study 26,760 agent-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset to examine three questions: how often do agents import libraries, how often do they introduce new dependencies (and with what versioning), and which specific libraries do they choose? We find that agents often import libraries (29.5% of PRs) but rarely add new dependencies (1.3% of PRs); and when they do, they follow strong versioning practices (75.0% specify a version), an improvement on direct LLM usage where versions are rarely mentioned. Generally, agents draw from a surprisingly diverse set of external libraries, contrasting with the limited "library preferences" seen in prior non-agentic LLM studies. Our findings offer an early empirical view on how AI coding agents interact with today's software ecosystems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2025.
Builds on
9 of 27 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025SetupBench: Assessing Software Engineering Agents' Ability to Bootstrap Development Environments11 Jul
- 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey4 Sep
Other references · 7
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 646
- 2024LLMs Meet Library Evolution: Evaluating Deprecated API Usage in LLM-based Code Completioncited by 29
- 2024An Empirical Study on Usage and Perceptions of LLMs in a Software Engineering Projectcited by 28
- 2022Automating Dependency Updates in Practice: An Exploratory Study on GitHub Dependabotcited by 12
- 2024ExploraCoder: Advancing code generation for multiple unseen APIs via planning and chained explorationcited by 11
- 2017On the Impact of Micro-Packages: An Empirical Study of the npm JavaScript Ecosystemcited by 3
- 2024The role of library versions in Developer-ChatGPT conversationscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Can Agents Design Libraries for Agents?cited by 0
- 2026Can Agents Design Libraries for Agents?29 Sep 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
- 2026How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
- 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time
- 2026Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs
- 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
- 2026AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development