mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A First Look at Coding Agents' Compliance with AI Contribution Rules in Open-Source Communities

arXiv 2607.26819 ↗First posted 29 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Open source communities have been flooded with AI-generated contributions. In defense, they have written contribution rules to regulate coding agents' behavior, spanning from a total ban, mandatory disclosure, to verification gates and human sign-offs. Yet, whether coding agents read and follow those rules, and behave in open source repositories, remains unknown. To estimate real-world rule compliance of coding agents, we curate 106 issues from 49 repositories containing AI contribution rules into RepoComplianceBench. We judge the trajectory of each run against the repository's rules, measuring whether the agent refuses to contribute, discloses its assistance truthfully, clears the required verification gates, or escalates critical steps to a human. We also test if extra prompts, rule disclosure, or feedback from the compliance verifier help with the situation. Our experiments on four frontier models show that today's agents almost never proactively retrieve the contribution rules. Agents pick up disclosure and verification with reminder prompts, rule quotes, and verifier feedback; however, they never refuse to contribute in AI-banned repositories under any condition we tested. The status reveals that verification and disclosure issues are solvable with existing mechanisms, yet enforcing bans and human escalations remains an open problem.

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. Builds on 9 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.

Builds on

9 of 16 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding Agents?12 Feb
  2. 2026AIDev: Studying AI Coding Agents on GitHub9 Feb
  3. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub21 Jan
  4. 2026OctoBench: Benchmarking Scaffold-Aware Instruction Following in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding15 Jan
  5. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub18 Sep

Other references · 4

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  2. 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agentscited by 196
  3. 2024ST-WebAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Safety and Trustworthiness in Web Agentscited by 126
  4. 2026Agentic Evaluation of Copyright Law Compliancecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Detecting AI Coding Agents in Open Source: A Validated Multi-Method Census of 180 Million Repositories
  2. 2026Correct Code, Broken Contributions? SWE-CC: Benchmarking Repository Policy Compliance for Coding Agents
  3. 2026Making Agent-Mediated Contributions Governable: A Project-Level Governance Manifest for Open-Source AI Collaboration
  4. 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time
  5. 2026Regulating the Machine Contributor: Governance and Policy Alignment in Open Source
  6. 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Software
  7. 2026Augmentation with Dilution: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Human Contributor Ecosystems After AI Coding Agent Adoption
  8. 2026Security in the Age of AI Teammates: An Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests on GitHub