mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Few Pages of Markdown: Committed AI Configuration and Lower Quality Cost after Coding-Agent Adoption

arXiv 2608.25241 ↗First posted 26 Aug 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

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 7 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

Builds on

7 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026AI IDEs or Autonomous Agents? Measuring the Impact of Coding Agents on Software Development20 Jan

Other references · 6

  1. 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 274
  2. 2022Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code?cited by 67
  3. 2024How much does AI impact development speed? An enterprise-based randomized controlled trialcited by 20
  4. 2025AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burdencited by 6
  5. 2024Impact of AI-tooling on the Engineering Workspacecited by 3
  6. 2026"An Endless Stream of AI Slop": How Developers Discuss the Burden of AI-Assisted Software Developmentcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Augmentation with Dilution: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Human Contributor Ecosystems After AI Coding Agent Adoption
  2. 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents
  3. 2026Scanning the Harness: A Repository Study of Configuration Exposures in AI Coding Agents
  4. 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Software
  5. 2026How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests
  6. 2026AI Writes Code, Humans Pay the Debt. An Empirical Study on the Sustainability and Evolution of Agent-Generated Code
  7. 2026Decoupling Code Complexity from Newcomer Participation: A Causal Study of AI Coding Agent Adoption in OSS
  8. 2026How Coding Agents Fail Their Users: A Large-Scale Analysis of Developer-Agent Misalignment in 20,574 Real-World Sessions