mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests

arXiv 2601.00753 ↗First posted 2 Jan 2026cs.SEcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

As AI coding agents evolve from autocomplete tools to autonomous "AI workforce" teammates, they introduce a critical new bottleneck: human maintainers must now manage complex interaction loops rather than just reviewing code. Analyzing 33,707 agent-authored PRs, we uncover a stark two-regime reality: agents excel at narrow automation (28.3% of PRs merge instantly), but frequently fail at iterative refinement, leading to "ghosting" (abandonment) when faced with subjective feedback. This creates a hidden "attention tax" on maintainers. We introduce a creation-time Circuit Breaker model to predict high-maintenance PRs before human review begins. By leveraging simple static complexity cues (e.g., file types, patch size), our model identifies the "expensive tail" of contributions with AUC 0.96, enabling a gated triage process. At a 20% review budget, this approach captures 69% of the high-effort PRs, effectively allowing maintainers to fast-fail costly, low-quality agent contributions while fast-tracking simple fixes.

Key facts. Cited by 3 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. First posted on arXiv 2 Jan 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Predicting Acceptance and Review Effort in Human and Agent Pull Requests
  2. 2026How AI Coding Agents Communicate: A Study of Pull Request Description Characteristics and Human Review Responses
  3. 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
  4. 2026These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests
  5. 2026From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality
  6. 2026When AI Teammates Meet Code Review: Collaboration Signals Shaping the Integration of Agent-Authored Pull Requests
  7. 2026Let's Make Every Pull Request Meaningful: An Empirical Analysis of Developer and Agentic Pull Requests
  8. 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time