CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesOpen Source Software Innovations

Agentic Much? Adoption of Coding Agents on GitHub

Open access
Robbes, Romain, Matricon, Théo, Degueule, Thomas, Hora, Andre, Zacchiroli, Stefano·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2601.18341arXiv 2601.18341
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the first half of 2025, coding agents have emerged as a category of development tools that have very quickly transitioned to the practice. Unlike ''traditional'' code completion LLMs such as Copilot, agents like Cursor, Claude Code, or Codex operate with high degrees of autonomy, up to generating complete pull requests starting from a developer-provided task description. This new mode of operation is poised to change the landscape in an even larger way than code completion LLMs did, making the need to study their impact critical. Also, unlike traditional LLMs, coding agents tend to leave more explicit traces in software engineering artifacts, such as co-authoring commits or pull requests. We leverage these traces to present the first large-scale study (128,018 projects) of the adoption of coding agents on GitHub, finding an estimated adoption rate of 22.20%--28.66%, which is very high for a technology only a few months old--and increasing. We carry out an in-depth study of the adopters we identified, finding that adoption is broad: it spans the entire spectrum of project maturity; it includes established organizations; and it concerns diverse programming languages or project topics. At the commit level, we find that commits assisted by coding agents are larger than commits only authored by human developers, and have a large proportion of features and bug fixes. These findings highlight the need for further investigation into the practical use of coding agents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2601.18341

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 2

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [2][2] Shraddha Barke, Michael B James, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2023. Grounded copilot: How programmers interact with code-generating models. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 7, OOPSLA1 (2023), 85-111. -
  2. [3][3] Joel Becker, Nate Rush, Elizabeth Barnes, and David Rein. 2025. Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09089 (2025). - · arXiv
  3. [4][4] Christian Bird, Peter C Rigby, Earl T Barr, David J Hamilton, Daniel M German, and Prem Devanbu. 2009. The promises and perils of mining git. In 2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories . IEEE, 1-10. -
  4. [5][5] Islem Bouzenia and Michael Pradel. 2025. Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-ActionResult Trajectories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18824 (2025). - · arXiv
  5. [6][6] Roberto Di Cosmo and Stefano Zacchiroli. 2017. Software Heritage: Why and How to Preserve Software Source Code. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPRES 2017) . ACM, 1-10. doi:10.1145/ nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn -
  6. [7][7] Ozren Dabic, Emad Aghajani, and Gabriele Bavota. 2021. Sampling projects in github for MSR studies. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . IEEE, 560-564. -
  7. [8][8] Michael W Godfrey and Lijie Zou. 2005. Using origin analysis to detect merging and splitting of source code entities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31, 2 (2005), 166-181. -
  8. [9][9] Leo A Goodman. 1965. On simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions. Technometrics 7, 2 (1965), 247-254. -
  9. [12][12] Hao He, Courtney Miller, Shyam Agarwal, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2025. Speed at the Cost of Quality? The Impact of LLM Agent Assistance on Software Development. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04427 (2025). - · arXiv
  10. [13][13] Andre Hora, Danilo Silva, Marco Tulio Valente, and Romain Robbes. 2018. Assessing the threat of untracked changes in software evolution. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1102-1113. -
  11. [14][14] Saki Imai. 2022. Is github copilot a substitute for human pair-programming? an empirical study. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings . 319-321. -
  12. [15][15] Aayush Kumar, Yasharth Bajpai, Sumit Gulwani, Gustavo Soares, and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2025. Sharp Tools: How Developers Wield Agentic AI in Real Software Engineering Tasks. arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv-2506. -
  13. [16][16] Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, et al. 2025. Measuring ai ability to complete long tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14499 (2025). - · arXiv
  14. [17][17] Alexander Lex, Nils Gehlenborg, Hendrik Strobelt, Romain Vuillemot, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2014. UpSet: Visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 1983-1992. doi:10.1109/ TVCG.2014.2346248 -
  15. [19][19] Jenny T Liang, Chenyang Yang, and Brad A Myers. 2024. A large-scale survey on the usability of ai programming assistants: Successes and challenges. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering . 1-13. -
  16. [20][20] Seyedmoein Mohsenimofidi, Matthias Galster, Christoph Treude, and Sebastian Baltes. 2025. Context Engineering for AI Agents in Open-Source Software. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21413 (2025). - · arXiv
  17. [21][21] Hussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, and Eric Horvitz. 2022. Reading between the lines: Modeling user behavior and costs in AI-assisted programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14306 (2022). - · arXiv
  18. [22][22] Vijayaraghavan Murali, Chandra Maddila, Imad Ahmad, Michael Bolin, Daniel Cheng, Negar Ghorbani, Renuka Fernandez, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2023. CodeCompose: A large-scale industrial deployment of AI-assisted code authoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12050 (2023). - · arXiv
  19. [23][23] Nachiappan Nagappan and Thomas Ball. 2005. Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering . 284-292. -
  20. [25][25] Sida Peng, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Peter Cihon, and Mert Demirer. 2023. The impact of ai on developer productivity: Evidence from github copilot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06590 (2023). - · arXiv
  21. [28][28] Klaas-Jan Stol and Brian Fitzgerald. 2018. The ABC of software engineering research. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 27, 3 (2018), 1-51. -
  22. [29][29] Mario F Triola, William Martin Goodman, Richard Law, and Gerry Labute. 2006. Elementary statistics . Pearson/AddisonWesley Reading, MA. -
  23. [30][30] Rosalia Tufano, Antonio Mastropaolo, Federica Pepe, Ozren Dabić, Massimiliano Di Penta, and Gabriele Bavota. 2024. Unveiling ChatGPT's Usage in Open Source Projects: A Mining-based Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16480 (2024). - · arXiv
  24. [32][32] Priyan Vaithilingam, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. Expectation vs. experience: Evaluating the usability of code generation tools powered by large language models. In Chi conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts . 1-7. -
  25. [33][33] Ruotong Wang, Ruijia Cheng, Denae Ford, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2023. Investigating and designing for trust in ai-powered code generation tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11248 (2023). - · arXiv
  26. [34][34] Tao Xiao, Youmei Fan, Fabio Calefato, Christoph Treude, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Hideaki Hata, and Sebastian Baltes. 2025. Self-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Software. CoRR abs/2507.10422 (2025). arXiv:2507.10422 doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.2507.10422 - · arXiv
  27. [35][35] Qunhong Zeng, Yuxia Zhang, Zhiqing Qiu, and Hui Liu. 2025. A First Look at Conventional Commits Classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering . 2277-2289. -
  28. [36][36] Albert Ziegler, Eirini Kalliamvakou, X Alice Li, Andrew Rice, Devon Rifkin, Shawn Simister, Ganesh Sittampalam, and Edward Aftandilian. 2022. Productivity assessment of neural code completion. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Machine Programming . 21-29.

Authors
Robbes, R., Matricon, T., Degueule, T., Hora, A., & Zacchiroli, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2601.18341
arXiv
2601.18341
OpenAlex
W7125830813
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
coding agents, technology adoption, GitHub, co-authorship, pull requests, project maturity, developer behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review