mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How AI Coding Agents Communicate: A Study of Pull Request Description Characteristics and Human Review Responses

arXiv 2602.17084 ↗First posted 19 Feb 2026cs.AI cs.SEcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid adoption of large language models has led to the emergence of AI coding agents that autonomously create pull requests on GitHub. However, how these agents differ in their pull request description characteristics, and how human reviewers respond to them, remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct an empirical analysis of pull requests created by five AI coding agents using the AIDev dataset. We analyze agent differences in pull request description characteristics, including structural features, and examine human reviewer response in terms of review activity, response timing, sentiment, and merge outcomes. We find that AI coding agents exhibit distinct PR description styles, which are associated with differences in reviewer engagement, response time, and merge outcomes. We observe notable variation across agents in both reviewer interaction metrics and merge rates. These findings highlight the role of pull request presentation and reviewer interaction dynamics in human-AI collaborative software development.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers 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 11 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.

Builds on

11 of 22 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May

Other references · 10

  1. 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 264
  2. 2022Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Modelscited by 216
  3. 2022Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programmingcited by 91
  4. 2024Towards AI-Native Software Engineering (SE 3.0): A Vision and a Challenge Roadmapcited by 30
  5. 2024AutoDev: Automated AI-Driven Developmentcited by 24
  6. 2025Experience with GitHub Copilot for Developer Productivity at Zoominfocited by 8
  7. 2020Can We Use SE-specific Sentiment Analysis Tools in a Cross-Platform Setting?cited by 7
  8. 2024Developers' Perceptions on the Impact of ChatGPT in Software Development: A Surveycited by 3
  9. 2025The Landscape of Toxicity: An Empirical Investigation of Toxicity on GitHubcited by 2
  10. 2025Are We on the Same Page? Examining Developer Perception Alignment in Open Source Code Reviewscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026When AI Teammates Meet Code Review: Collaboration Signals Shaping the Integration of Agent-Authored Pull Requests
  2. 2026These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests
  3. 2026Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests
  4. 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
  5. 2026From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality
  6. 2026Let's Make Every Pull Request Meaningful: An Empirical Analysis of Developer and Agentic Pull Requests
  7. 2026Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review
  8. 2026Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical Study