Collaborator or Assistant? How AI Coding Agents Partition Work Across Pull Request Lifecycles
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866916008466317312 |
|---|---|
| author | Jo, Young Chung Hassan, Safwat |
| author_facet | Jo, Young Chung Hassan, Safwat |
| contents | When AI coding agents open branches and submit pull requests (PRs), two questions co-determine oversight design: who starts the work (operational agency) and who authorizes its completion (merge governance). We characterize tools along a Collaborator-Assistant spectrum in how they redistribute initiative, oversight, and endorsement, while merge governance remains predominantly human across five tools (OpenAI, Copilot, Devin, Cursor, Claude Code). We analyze 29,585 PR lifecycles using an Initiator x Approver taxonomy with six interaction scenarios; lifecycle reconstruction supplies the how behind those roles. Collaborator tools (Cursor, Devin, Copilot) concentrate operational initiative in agents that open and carry PR work forward, with humans retaining review and endorsement on the path to merge; Assistant tools (OpenAI, Claude) leave task direction primarily with humans and supply bounded support within human-led workflows. Across the spectrum, agency and governance decouple: Collaborator workflows are >=96% agent initiated, yet terminal merge authority remains almost exclusively human, with agent-classified approvers confined to a small fraction of PRs. Where automation executes a merge, logs record the executor but not the decision-maker, marking a boundary of observation. We contribute the taxonomy, per-tool state machines, and a replication package for research on automation, oversight, and governance in PR workflows. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_08017 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Collaborator or Assistant? How AI Coding Agents Partition Work Across Pull Request Lifecycles Jo, Young Chung Hassan, Safwat Software Engineering When AI coding agents open branches and submit pull requests (PRs), two questions co-determine oversight design: who starts the work (operational agency) and who authorizes its completion (merge governance). We characterize tools along a Collaborator-Assistant spectrum in how they redistribute initiative, oversight, and endorsement, while merge governance remains predominantly human across five tools (OpenAI, Copilot, Devin, Cursor, Claude Code). We analyze 29,585 PR lifecycles using an Initiator x Approver taxonomy with six interaction scenarios; lifecycle reconstruction supplies the how behind those roles. Collaborator tools (Cursor, Devin, Copilot) concentrate operational initiative in agents that open and carry PR work forward, with humans retaining review and endorsement on the path to merge; Assistant tools (OpenAI, Claude) leave task direction primarily with humans and supply bounded support within human-led workflows. Across the spectrum, agency and governance decouple: Collaborator workflows are >=96% agent initiated, yet terminal merge authority remains almost exclusively human, with agent-classified approvers confined to a small fraction of PRs. Where automation executes a merge, logs record the executor but not the decision-maker, marking a boundary of observation. We contribute the taxonomy, per-tool state machines, and a replication package for research on automation, oversight, and governance in PR workflows. |
| title | Collaborator or Assistant? How AI Coding Agents Partition Work Across Pull Request Lifecycles |
| topic | Software Engineering |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08017 |