mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Co-Modifying Application Code and Deployment Infrastructure: A Causal Study of AI Agent Pull Requests

arXiv 2610.12849 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Current software engineering agents are evaluated predominantly inside isolated sandboxes against synchronous local tests. However, deploying features in collaborative repositories requires modifying continuous integration (CI/CD) pipelines, containers, and provisioning manifests alongside application logic. Because agents lack deployment awareness, attempting cross-domain modifications introduces unverified dependencies into asynchronous integration pipelines. To isolate the causal integration overhead of dual-scope pull requests (PRs)-modifying both application code and deployment infrastructure-we evaluated 26,999 PRs across two large datasets (AIDev v5 and MOSAIC-3M) encompassing six agent architectures and an aligned human baseline. Using a deterministic four-tier file taxonomy and an exact 4D strata-matching framework, we isolated integration metrics under conditional exchangeability while controlling for application volume. We find agents operate primarily as application coders or chore workers, with maintenance tasks capturing 17.70% to 25.41% of agent PRs. Dual-scope modifications represent only 4.48% to 4.55% of agentic PRs, yet trigger bimodal integration outcomes. In the first mode, explicitly reviewed contributions experience protracted delays, adding a median penalty of +13.13 hours and multiplying time-to-merge by 3.24x, driven mechanically by CI/CD and provisioning manifests. In the second mode, maintainer gatekeeping exhibits a structural bypass: even for external contributors lacking repository write access, agent identity reduces the odds of human review by 63.7% compared to human peers. Consequently, 43.1% to 56.2% of dual-scope PRs bypass inspection to merge silently in a median of under 31 minutes. These uninspected modifications compromise build verification, demonstrating the need for deployment-aware benchmarks and strict path-based access controls.

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 12 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.

Builds on

12 of 45 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical Study21 May
  2. 2026Investigating Autonomous Agent Contributions in the Wild: Activity Patterns and Code Change over Time1 Apr
  3. 2026AIDev: Studying AI Coding Agents on GitHub9 Feb
  4. 2026Let's Make Every Pull Request Meaningful: An Empirical Analysis of Developer and Agentic Pull Requests26 Jan
  5. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub21 Jan

Other references · 7

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  2. 2022Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completioncited by 98
  3. 2022Taxonomy of Attacks on Open-Source Software Supply Chainscited by 58
  4. 2024Prompting Large Language Models to Tackle the Full Software Development Lifecycle: A Case Studycited by 44
  5. 2022Automating Dependency Updates in Practice: An Exploratory Study on GitHub Dependabotcited by 13
  6. 2018How to Design a Program Repair Bot? Insights from the Repairnator Projectcited by 11
  7. 2026DevOps-Gym: Benchmarking AI Agents in Software DevOps Cyclecited by 11

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026How Do AI Coding Agents Contribute to Software Development? an Empirical Study of Agentic Pull Requests
  2. 2025A Study of Library Usage in Agent-Authored Pull Requests
  3. 2026AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub
  4. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
  5. 2026Humans Integrate, Agents Fix: How Agent-Authored Pull Requests Are Referenced in Practice
  6. 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Software
  7. 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests
  8. 2026Why Are AI Agent Involved Pull Requests (Fix-Related) Remain Unmerged? An Empirical Study