mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AI builds, We Analyze: An Empirical Study of AI-Generated Build Code Quality

arXiv 2601.16839 ↗First posted 23 Jan 2026cs.SEcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid adoption of AI coding agents for software development has raised important questions about the quality and maintainability of the code they produce. While prior studies have examined AI-generated source code, the impact of AI coding agents on build systems-a critical yet understudied component of the software lifecycle-remains largely unexplored. This data mining challenge focuses on AIDev, the first large-scale, openly available dataset capturing agent-authored pull requests (Agentic-PRs) from real-world GitHub repositories. Our paper leverages this dataset to investigate (RQ1) whether AI coding agents generate build code with quality issues (e.g., code smells), (RQ2) to what extent AI agents can eliminate code smells from build code, and (RQ3) to what extent Agentic-PRs are accepted by developers. We identified 364 maintainability and security-related build smells across varying severity levels, indicating that AI-generated build code can introduce quality issues-such as lack of error handling, and hardcoded paths or URLs-while also, in some cases, removing existing smells through refactorings (e.g., Pull Up Module and Externalize Properties). Notably, more than 61% of Agentic-PRs are approved and merged with minimal human intervention. This dual impact underscores the need for future research on AI-aware build code quality assessment to systematically evaluate, guide, and govern AI-generated build systems code.

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. First posted on arXiv 23 Jan 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs
  2. 2026How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests
  3. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
  4. 2024Evaluating Software Development Agents: Patch Patterns, Code Quality, and Issue Complexity in Real-World GitHub Scenarios
  5. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
  6. 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time
  7. 2026AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development
  8. 2026To What Extent Does Agent-generated Code Require Maintenance? An Empirical Study