mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Insights into Security-Related AI-Generated Pull Requests

arXiv 2604.19965 ↗First posted 21 Apr 2026cs.SEcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent years have experienced growing contributions of AI coding agents that assist human developers in various software engineering tasks. However, this growing AI-assisted autonomy raises questions about security and trust. In this paper, we analyze more than 33,000 AI-generated pull requests (PRs) and identify 675 security-related submissions made by agentic AIs. Then we examine the security-related PRs with a focus on recurring security weaknesses, review outcomes and latency, commit message quality, and rejection reasons. The results show that security-related AI PRs introduce a small set of recurring weaknesses such as regex inefficiencies, injection flaws, and path traversal. Many flawed contributions are still merged, while rejections often arise from social or process factors such as inactivity or missing test coverage. The commit message quality of AI PRs has a limited effect on acceptance or latency, in contrast to human PRs reported in previous studies. We also extend existing rejection taxonomies by adding categories that are unique to AI-generated security contributions. These findings offer new insights into the strengths and shortcomings of autonomous coding systems in secure software development.

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 21 Apr 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Security in the Age of AI Teammates: An Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests on GitHub
  2. 2026Trust but Verify? Uncovering the Security Debt of Autonomous Coding Agents
  3. 2026Why Agentic-PRs Get Rejected: A Comparative Study of Coding Agents
  4. 2026Fingerprinting AI Coding Agents on GitHub
  5. 2026Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs
  6. 2026SoK: AI Secure Code Generation: Progress, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward
  7. 2026Analyzing Message-Code Inconsistency in AI Coding Agent-Authored Pull Requests
  8. 2026Code Change Characteristics and Description Alignment: A Comparative Study of Agentic versus Human Pull Requests