Reliability of AI Bots Footprints in GitHub Actions CI/CD Workflows
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Continuous Integration and Deployment (CI/CD) workflows are central to modern software delivery, yet the reliability of agentic AI bots operating within these workflows remain underexplored. Using pull requests (PRs), commits, and repositories from the AIDev dataset, we retrieved associated CI/CD workflow runs via the GitHub Actions API and analyzed 61,837 runs from 2,355 repositories, all triggered by PRs generated by five AI bots: Claude, Devin, Cursor, Copilot, and Codex. We observed substantial agent-dependent differences in workflow reliability, with Copilot and Codex achieving the highest success rates ~93% and ~94% respectively. At the repository level, we find a negative correlation between AI agent contribution frequency and workflow success rate, suggesting that a higher frequency of Agentic PRs may hinder CI/CD workflow reliability. We defined a taxonomy of 13 categories against 3,067 agentic PRs whose associated workflows failed, and observed a trend analysis that indicates visually observable shifts from functional to non-functional PR categories over time, although these trends are not statistically significant. Our findings motivate the need for actionable guidance on integrating AI agents into CI/CD workflows and prioritizing safeguards in workflows where failures are most likely to occur.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (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 20 Apr 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
- 2026When AI Agents Touch CI/CD Configurations: Frequency and Success
- 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
- 2026Specifying and Maintaining Agentic Workflows: An Empirical Study of GitHub Agentic Workflows
- 2026Demystifying and Detecting Agentic Workflow Injection Vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions
- 2026Not All Agents Are Equal: Code Quality and Post-Merge Maintenance Across Five Autonomous Coding Agents in the Wild
- 2026AI Agent Pull Requests on GitHub: Frequency, Structure, and Merge Conflict Rates