# Hot Fixing in the Wild

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26892 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.26892/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the operational importance of hot fixes, large-scale evidence on how they reshape routine maintenance workflows, particularly in the era of autonomous coding agents, remains limited. We analyse hot fixes present in over 61,000 GitHub repositories from the Hao-Li/AIDev dataset and find consistent patterns of urgency: reduced collaboration (typically a single contributor), smaller and more targeted changes (median 2-3 commits and files, with <10 line modifications), limited review (often fewer than two reviewers), and substantially fewer test file modifications than regular bug fixes, consistent with their urgency-driven character. Leveraging the same urgency contexts, we examine differences between human- and AI-agent-authored hot fixes, revealing over 10 distinct repair behaviours, thus offering insights into future human-automation collaboration for hot fixing. Our study is the first to empirically analyse hot fix code changes at scale using a repository-level operationalisation of urgency. The comparison of human and agentbehaviours delineates their distinct characteristics, providing a foundation for understanding hot fixing in real-world practice