Toward Instructions-as-Code: Understanding the Impact of Instruction Files on Agentic Pull Requests
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
AI-agents (e.g., GitHub Copilot) collaborate as teammates in different software engineering tasks, including code generation proposed through pull requests (Agentic-PRs). For better agent efficiency, developers create instruction files that guide the AI-agents, including how to navigate the project, locate the right components, run tests, respect best practices, and more. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the creation of these instructions and the performance of AI-agents in creating better pull requests, which have a higher chance of success (i.e., the merge rate), address more complex tasks (e.g., code churn), and require less effort to be merged (e.g., time to merge). To this end, we analyze 15,549 agentic PRs from 148 projects in the AIDev dataset. Using the three dimensions, we compare each project before and after the creation of the instruction files. We find that specifying instructions for AI-agents does not necessarily lead to better results. With the instruction files, 27.7% of the projects increased their merge rate by at least 20%, while 26.35% decreased it. The same observation is seen with the amount of changes (e.g., code churn, number of modified files) and with the efforts to merge an agentic PR (e.g., merge time and number of comments). From a first exploration, we find that projects that managed to increase their merge rate have substantially longer instruction files, which are also well structured into a higher number of sections and sub-sections. Our results motivate the need for research to assist practitioners in framing the development of instruction files as a software engineering activity (aka, Instructions-as-Code).
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. Builds on 5 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.
Builds on
5 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Agent READMEs: An Empirical Study of Context Files for Agentic Coding17 Nov
- 2025Decoding the Configuration of AI Coding Agents: Insights from Claude Code Projects12 Nov
Other references · 3
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
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
- 2026How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests
- 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests
- 2026AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub
- 2026On the Impact of AGENTS.md Files on the Efficiency of AI Coding Agents
- 2026Why Are AI Agent Involved Pull Requests (Fix-Related) Remain Unmerged? An Empirical Study
- 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time