Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs
arXiv:2603.27524v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly integrated into modern software engineering workflows, actively collaborating with human developers to create pull requests (PRs) in open-source repositories. Although coding agents improve developer productivity, they often generate code with more bugs and security issues than human-authored code. While human-authored PRs often break backward compatibility, leading to breaking changes, the potential for agentic PRs to introduce breaking changes remains underexplored. The goal of this paper is to help developer — K M Ferdous, Dipayan Banik, Kowshik Chowdhury, Shazibul Islam Shamim
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:AI coding agents are increasingly integrated into modern software engineering workflows, actively collaborating with human developers to create pull requests (PRs) in open-source repositories. Although coding agents improve developer productivity, they often generate code with more bugs and security issues than human-authored code. While human-authored PRs often break backward compatibility, leading to breaking changes, the potential for agentic PRs to introduce breaking changes remains underexplored. The goal of this paper is to help developers and researchers evaluate the reliability of AI-generated PRs by examining the frequency and task contexts in which AI agents introduce breaking changes. We conduct a comparative analysis of 7,191 agent-generated PRs with 1402 human-authored PRs from Python repositories in the AIDev dataset. We develop a tool that analyzes code changes in commits corresponding to the agentic PRs and leverages an abstract syntax tree (AST) based analysis to detect potential breaking changes. Our findings show that AI agents introduce fewer breaking changes overall than humans (3.45% vs. 7.40%) in code generation tasks. However, agents exhibit substantially higher risk during maintenance tasks, with refactoring and chore changes introducing breaking changes at rates of 6.72% and 9.35%, respectively. We also identify a "Confidence Trap" where highly confident agentic PRs still introduce breaking changes, indicating the need for stricter review during maintenance oriented changes regardless of reported confidence score.
Comments: Accepted at 23rd International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2026
Subjects:
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.27524 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2603.27524v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27524
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: K M Ferdous [view email] [v1] Sun, 29 Mar 2026 05:15:13 UTC (2,319 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
Looking for Help on Building a Cheap/Budget Dedicated AI System
I’ve been getting into the whole AI field over the course of the year and I’ve strictly said to NEVER use cloud based AI (Or under VERY strict and specific circumstances). For example, i was using Opencode’s cloud servers, but only because it was through their own community maintained infrastructure/servers and also it was about as secure as it gets when it comes to cloud AI. But anything else is a hard NO. I’ve been using my main machine (Specs on user) and so far it’s been pretty good. Depending on the model, I can run 30-40B models at about 25-35 tok/s, which for me is completely usable, anything under or close to 10 tok/s is pretty unusable for me. But anyways, that has been great for me, but I’m slowly running into VRAM and GPU limitations, so I think it’s time to get some dedicated h
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
![Thoughts on AI and Research [pdf]](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
Request for arXiv cs.AI Endorsement – Life-Aligned AI Framework
Hi everyone, I’m preparing to submit a paper to arXiv (cs.AI, with cross-lists to q-bio.PE and physics.soc-ph) and am currently awaiting endorsement from a qualified author. Posting here in case anyone in this community can help or knows someone who can. Title: Life-Aligned AI: A Framework for Grounding Artificial Intelligence in the Empirical Conditions of Flourishing Here’s the main idea: Current alignment approaches work backwards — rules imposed in advance by minds that the systems they constrain may eventually exceed. This paper proposes a different starting point: training AI on living systems — the only adaptive framework continuously pressure-tested across four billion years under conditions of genuine consequence — and letting the operating principles emerge from genuine reasoning
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!