mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Task-Level Evaluation of AI Agents in Open-Source Projects

arXiv 2602.02345 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2026cs.SEcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

In this paper, we present a comparative study of five autonomous coding agents using AIDev-pop, which is a public dataset containing thousands of AI-generated pull requests (PRs) across popular open-source repositories. We evaluate agents' performance along three task-aware dimensions spanning the PR lifecycle: (1) PR acceptance rate, (2) review discussion volume, and (3) commit message quality. Our quantitative analysis finds that Codex consistently achieves high PR acceptance rates across most task categories, while Copilot's PRs trigger the highest volume of both human and automated review discussions. In contrast, commit-level quality varies independently of acceptance outcomes. Claude and Cursor produce higher proportions of high-quality commit messages across several task types, and Codex exhibiting comparatively lower commit quality despite strong integration outcomes. Our findings inform selection and improvements of AI agents for their effective integration to collaborative software engineering.

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 2 Feb 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. 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time
  2. 2026Comparing AI Coding Agents: A Task-Stratified Analysis of Pull Request Acceptance
  3. 2026On Autopilot? An Empirical Study of Human-AI Teaming and Review Practices in Open Source
  4. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
  5. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
  6. 2026When AI Teammates Meet Code Review: Collaboration Signals Shaping the Integration of Agent-Authored Pull Requests
  7. 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests
  8. 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice