Before the Pull Request: Mining Multi-Agent Coordination
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous coding agents now open millions of pull requests, yet large-scale studies find their PRs are produced faster but accepted less often - a coordination and trust gap that pull-request-level telemetry cannot explain. We argue the missing signal lives before the PR, in how concurrent agents claim, divide, and collide over shared work. We study this process through grite, our open-source coordination substrate that needs no central server and stores its records inside git itself, so its append-only, signed event log captures the coordination process directly. We show that (i) this shared substrate reduces duplicate and conflicting work at bounded overhead - the share of work that merely re-does a teammate's task falls from 78% to 0% while useful throughput more than triples; (ii) every agent's copy of the log converges to the same state with no write silently dropped, where a file-based tracker loses concurrent writes; and (iii) the log is a mineable artefact from which concrete failure modes - conflicting edits, lock starvation, redundant rediscovery, race-to-close - are automatically recoverable with provenance, several invisible in pull-request history. We release the dataset, harness, and mining toolkit.
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 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2026.
Builds on
5 of 15 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation16 Aug
Other references · 3
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2020Detecting and Characterizing Bots that Commit Codecited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Software
- 2026Security in the Age of AI Teammates: An Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests on GitHub
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
- 2026When Agents Coordinate: Measuring Coordination in Multi-Agent AI Coding
- 2026Verifying Coordination in Parallel Coding Agents: NP-Bench and a Scheduling Planner
- 2026Not All Agents Are Equal: Code Quality and Post-Merge Maintenance Across Five Autonomous Coding Agents in the Wild
- 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
- 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests