The AIDev-pop dataset is used to provide the first empirical examination of the prevalence of concurrent submission using PRs authored by agents, and a classification system based on the detection of conflict reported by git is developed.
Abstract
AI coding agents may generate and submit Pull Requests (PRs) to the same repository at the same time. However, research concerning the extent of concurrent submission by AI coding agents to a common repository does not exist. This paper uses the AIDev-pop dataset (33,596 PRs in 2,807 repositories) to provide the first empirical examination of the prevalence of concurrent submission using PRs authored by agents. We report that when considering exact temporal overlap, 40.2% of repositories contain co-active agent-authored PR pairs; further, the co-active pairs account for 79.4% of all PRs generated by an AI agent. When we examine co-activity within a one week collaboration window, the percentages are increased to 53.4% and 95.0%, respectively. For the majority of the co-active PR pairs (underlying the vast majority of which are intra-agent authored), both PRs were authored by the same agent, while only 0.5% of co-active pairs were cross-agent, and occurred in only 122 out of 2807 total repositories examined (or approximately 4.3%). Additionally, we replayed actual three way git merges on 747 unique co-active pairs (one per repository), and computed the percentage of textual conflict encountered during the merge operation to combine the two PRs in each pair. We observed that the percentage of textual conflict encountered was significantly higher for cross-agent pairs compared to intra-agent pairs: 41.7% vs. 19.8%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Lastly, we developed a classification system based on the detection of conflict reported by git, and determined that the majority of conflicts resulted from modifications to source code files (84.4% of conflicted files) and not dependency manifest files; further, nearly 42% of conflicts we observed were structural (i.e., modify/delete or add/add).
AI coding agents are increasingly integrated into software development workflows, operating on both sides of the pull-request (PR) process: AI authoring agents create or modify PRs, while AI reviewers evaluate them. This creates a closed loop in which one AI coding agent reviews a contribution attributed to another. We construct a large-scale dataset of AI-to-AI code review by linking AI-attributed PRs with AI-attributed review events from CodAGE, a public dataset of coding-agent-generated GitHub events. Our dataset contains 248,641 unique AI-attributed PRs that received at least one AI-attributed review. Of these, 45,269 received cross-product review and 208,145 received same-product review; 4,773 PRs received both. Cross-product AI-to-AI review occurred in approximately 1.6% of identified agent-authored PRs but was substantial in absolute terms, and its volume increased by more than two orders of magnitude from 2025-Q1 to 2025-Q3. Reviewer output varied across author-reviewer configurations. CodeRabbit labeled 35.0% of its comments on Claude Code-authored PRs as refactor comments, compared with 10.5% on Copilot-authored PRs, although this difference may reflect characteristics of the PRs rather than the reviewer. For three of four dual-role reviewers, mean comments per PR were 58-65% higher in the same-product group, although effect sizes were small or negligible and the difference was concentrated in the upper tail. Among pairs with complete, nonnegative timestamps, the observed median latency was 1.2 minutes for cross-product pairs and 4.7 minutes for same-product pairs; differential timestamp availability and reviewer composition limit this comparison. Overall, closed-loop AI-to-AI review is increasing but remains a minority of identified agent activity, with review output varying across authoring-agent groups and product configurations.
Generative AI-based software engineering agents are becoming routine contributors to real-world software projects. On GitHub, developers can assign tasks to the Copilot cloud agent, which autonomously explores the repository, edits code, runs commands, and opens or reviews pull requests, producing a detailed log of every step along the way. While existing datasets capture outcomes of agent contributions, such as agent-authored pull requests, the process by which agents produce these contributions remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce AgentLogs, a large-scale dataset of agent activity on GitHub. AgentLogs comprises 307,416 agent tasks and 549,239 agent sessions in 35,810 of the 1,812,362 popular public repositories that we scanned, together with 64,255,174 session log entries that record each agent run step by step, including prompts, intermediate reasoning, tool calls (e.g., file edits, git operations, and GitHub interactions), and token usage. By exposing not only what agents contribute but also how they work, AgentLogs enables research on agent behavior, efficiency and cost, task formulation, failure modes, and human-agent collaboration in agentic software engineering.
Jonan Richards, Kosei Horikawa, Youmei Fan et al.· 0 citations
Repository exploration is a distinct and costly stage of coding-agent pipelines: before generating a patch, an agent must identify which repository files are likely to matter. We study whether this stage can be delegated to lower-cost models while retaining useful localization quality. Using our IssueLoc-Bench, we evaluate five explorer models under the same read-only interactive interface on 499 SWE-bench Verified-derived tasks and 500 tasks from 153 additional repositories. We measure early candidate discovery, top-three gold-file coverage, strict file-set recovery, agent time, and token usage, with paired instance-level uncertainty and repository-clustered sensitivity analysis. The highest-quality explorer leads across localization metrics, but substantially cheaper operating points emerge: depending on the model and evaluation arm, lower-cost explorers retain approximately 78-94% of the reference Hit@3 and 73-92% of its F1 while reducing mean agent time by 41-88% and token usage by 84-95%. The preferred operating point depends on how localization is consumed downstream: ranking and coverage metrics characterize recoverable candidate handoffs, whereas F1 and exact match characterize restrictive file gates. These results support treating repository exploration as an independently measurable and budgetable stage of modular coding agents, with explorer selection guided by the downstream handoff contract.
This work compares configured Loreley QD, sequential champion editing, and independent root proposals in a matched Zstandard experiment and finds that Sequential had the highest observed 48-job mean and median and established a QD advantage.
SuperScout is presented, which routes after scouting the repository: a 7B searcher, SuperScout-7B, first explores the repository and produces a structured handoff whose reproduction claims are sandbox-verified, with false claims stripped before delivery.
This work introduces a generalizable evaluation framework that maps native MAS traces into a shared space of unified collaboration graphs, enabling different methods to be evaluated under the same representation, reference set, and metric panel.
Guo Chen, Ziwen Li, Reed Li et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
