mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development

arXiv 2601.13597 ↗First posted 20 Jan 2026cs.SEcited by 11

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) based coding agents increasingly act as autonomous contributors that generate and merge pull requests, yet their real-world effects on software projects are unclear-especially compared with widely adopted IDE-based AI assistants. We present a longitudinal causal study of agent adoption in open-source repositories using staggered difference-in-differences with matched controls. Using the AIDev dataset, we define adoption as the first agent-generated pull request and analyze monthly repository-level outcomes spanning development velocity (commits, lines added) and software quality (static-analysis warnings, cognitive complexity, duplication, and comment density). Results show large, front-loaded velocity gains only when agents are the first observable AI tool in a project; repositories with prior AI IDE usage experience minimal or short-lived throughput increases. In contrast, quality risks are persistent across settings, with static-analysis warnings and cognitive complexity rising by roughly 18% and 39%, indicating sustained agent-induced technical debt even when velocity advantages fade. These heterogeneous effects suggest diminishing returns to AI assistance and highlight the need for quality safeguards, provenance tracking, and selective deployment of autonomous agents. Our findings establish an empirical basis for understanding how agentic and IDE-based tools interact, and motivate research on balancing acceleration with maintainability in AI-integrated development workflows. The replication package for this study is publicly available at https://github.com/shyamagarwal13/agentic-coding-impact.

Key facts. Cited by 11 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 25 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2026.

Builds on

25 of 44 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub18 Sep
  2. 2025Agentic AI for Software: thoughts from Software Engineering community24 Aug
  3. 2025Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows10 Jul
  4. 2025Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI26 May

Other references · 21

  1. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
  2. 2022Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Modelscited by 218
  3. 2025Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivitycited by 101
  4. 2022Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completioncited by 98
  5. 2022Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programmingcited by 91
  6. 2023A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and Challengescited by 75
  7. 2022Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code?cited by 67
  8. 2024Transforming Software Development: Evaluating the Efficiency and Challenges of GitHub Copilot in Real-World Projectscited by 18
  9. 2024Examining the Use and Impact of an AI Code Assistant on Developer Productivity and Experience in the Enterprisecited by 17
  10. 2022"It would work for me too": How Online Communities Shape Software Developers' Trust in AI-Powered Code Generation Toolscited by 14
  11. 2024The Role of Generative AI in Software Development Productivity: A Pilot Case Studycited by 14
  12. 2025The Effects of GitHub Copilot on Computing Students' Programming Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Processes in Brownfield Programming Taskscited by 9
9 more
  1. 2024Generating Java Methods: An Empirical Assessment of Four AI-Based Code Assistantscited by 6
  2. 2025Intuition to Evidence: Measuring AI's True Impact on Developer Productivitycited by 5
  3. 2024Impact of AI-tooling on the Engineering Workspacecited by 3
  4. 2024Harnessing the Potential of Gen-AI Coding Assistants in Public Sector Software Developmentcited by 3
  5. 2025Self-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Softwarecited by 3
  6. 2025Ten Simple Rules for AI-Assisted Coding in Sciencecited by 3
  7. 2025Quality evaluation of Tabby coding assistant using real source code snippetscited by 2
  8. 2025Creating benchmarkable components to measure the quality ofAI-enhanced developer toolscited by 1
  9. 2025On the Future of Software Reuse in the Era of AI Native Software Engineeringcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 11.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time
  2. 2026AI Writes Code, Humans Pay the Debt. An Empirical Study on the Sustainability and Evolution of Agent-Generated Code
  3. 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Software
  4. 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents
  5. 2025A Study of Library Usage in Agent-Authored Pull Requests
  6. 2026Comparing AI Coding Agents: A Task-Stratified Analysis of Pull Request Acceptance
  7. 2026A Task-Level Evaluation of AI Agents in Open-Source Projects
  8. 2026On Autopilot? An Empirical Study of Human-AI Teaming and Review Practices in Open Source