From Agent Behaviour to Agent-Friendly Documentation: An Empirical Study of How Coding Agents Discover, Read, and Write Technical Documentation
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Technical documentation is written for human developers, but an increasing share of software changes is now authored by autonomous coding agents. Which documents they consult, when, and what follows remain unknown. We conduct a behaviour-grounded study of agent-documentation interaction across two public datasets: 557 agentic coding sessions from SWE-chat, yielding 94,813 development events including 3,033 documentation interactions; and 33,097 agentic pull requests from AIDev, with 690,260 classified file-level change records. Four findings challenge current documentation practice. First, agents' documentation work is dominated by agent-facing artefacts: instruction files and working notes account for 60.5% of all documentation interactions, versus 10.6% for classical technical documentation and 1.3% for API references. Second, the link between consultation and code editing is unresolved: the adjacent transition probability is 0.002 and the unadjusted three-event lift 1.05, whereas a stage-adjusted model places it above unity (OR 1.33 [1.09, 1.62]); documentation creation is elevated unadjusted (lift 1.67) but its adjusted interval includes unity. Third, no explicit documentation-based validation sequence was observed, and consultation is associated with less immediate testing (lift 0.23, cluster CI 0.08-0.45; adjusted OR 0.39 [0.25, 0.60]). Fourth, consultation is self-initiated (70.2%) far more often than failure-driven (7.5%), and documentation trails code: among multi-commit pull requests changing both, code is touched first 4.7x more often. From these traces we derive a descriptive model of agent-documentation interaction as a two-lobed cycle rather than a linear journey, and show that two widely assumed properties of "agent-friendly" documentation - actionability and verifiability - lack consistent behavioural support. We release our pipeline, coding scheme, and event-level data.
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 25 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2026.
Builds on
25 of 78 references.
Closest ancestors · 16
Same direction, newest first
- 2026An Exploratory Study of Agent Plans for Agentic AI Coding Tools in Open-Source Software5 Aug
- 2026Do Context Files Help Coding Agents? A Two-Agent Ablation Study on Real Repositories28 Jul
- 2026SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild22 Apr
- 2026Do AI Coding Agents Log Like Humans? An Empirical Study10 Apr
- 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time1 Apr
- 2026Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding Agents?12 Feb
- 2026AIDev: Studying AI Coding Agents on GitHub9 Feb
- 2026Agentic Much? Adoption of Coding Agents on GitHub26 Jan
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub21 Jan
- 2025Context as a Tool: Context Management for Long-Horizon SWE-Agents26 Dec
- 2025Agent READMEs: An Empirical Study of Context Files for Agentic Coding17 Nov
- 2025Agentic Refactoring: An Empirical Study of AI Coding Agents6 Nov
4 more
- 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories31 Oct
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding Manifests: An Empirical Study of Claude Code18 Sep
- 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey4 Sep
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul
Other references · 9
- 2022DocPrompting: Generating Code by Retrieving the Docscited by 151
- 2024CodeRAG-Bench: Can Retrieval Augment Code Generation?cited by 89
- 2020Learning to Update Natural Language Comments Based on Code Changescited by 30
- 2018Categorizing the Content of GitHub README Filescited by 18
- 2026HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark): Do Agents Know When to Ask for Help?cited by 16
- 20199.6 Million Links in Source Code Comments: Purpose, Evolution, and Decaycited by 6
- 2026Context Rot in AI-Assisted Software Development: Repurposing Documentation Consistency for AI Configuration Artifactscited by 2
- 2026Why Does CLAUDE.md Keep Growing? Catastrophic Remembering in Agentic Codingcited by 2
- 2026What's Inside a GitHub Repository? An Empirical Study on the Contents of 10K Projectscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
- 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents
- 2026Compact Documentation for Coding Agents: A Benchmark, an Optimizer, and Why It Does Not Transfer
- 2025Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows
- 2026Developer Experience with AI Coding Agents: HTTP Behavioral Signatures in Documentation Portals
- 2025Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025
- 2026How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions
- 2025A Study of Library Usage in Agent-Authored Pull Requests