Agent-generated pull requests are present but lightly used: the typical popular GitHub repo produces only one to two agentic PRs in three months, with intensive use concentrated in a few projects; small teams show higher per-capita agent activity and oversight is usually performed by a single human reviewer.

Main Finding

Agentic coding tools (Copilot, Codex, Claude Code) were adopted widely but unevenly across popular GitHub projects in May–July 2025: typical repositories produced only 1–2 agentic PRs in three months, adoption concentrated in a small set of projects, small teams involved a larger share of their contributors in agentic workflows (and some small repos generated many agentic PRs), and human-agent collaboration was dominated by a single-human oversight model (one developer both reviews and commits).

Key Points

• Scope and scale
  • 25,264 agentic PRs across 2,361 popular repositories (>=100 stars), observed May–July 2025.
  • Dataset filtered from AIDev-pop; agents studied: GitHub Copilot, OpenAI Codex, Claude Code.
• Adoption patterns
  • Median repository produced only 1–2 agentic PRs during the 3-month window → intensive adoption is rare.
  • 42.27% of repositories had a human participation ratio < 0.05 (fewer than 5% of contributors engaged with agentic PRs).
  • 70.18% had participation ratio < 0.20; 75.22% < 0.30.
• Team-size differences
  • Small projects (1–5 contributors) show much higher participation ratios than medium (6–15) or large (16+) projects.
  • Mean agentic PRs per repository: small = 50.2, medium = 5.6, large = 6.7 — indicating strong skew in small-project activity (few small repos account for many PRs).
  • Differences across size bins are statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis p < 0.001) with large effect sizes (eta-squared ≈ 0.62; sensitivity binning produced eta-squared ≈ 0.73).
• Productivity and normalization
  • Project-level productivity operationalized as agentic PRs per human participant (PRs managed/generated per participant during the period).
  • Most projects fall below an industry-cited benchmark (36 PRs per participant over the same period); only a small number exceed it.
• Human-agent collaboration modes
  • Dominant pattern: single-human oversight where the same human both reviews and commits the agent’s contribution.
  • Multi-human review/commit patterns are uncommon.
• Robustness and effect sizes
  • Pairwise effect sizes (Cliff’s Delta) for participation ratios across size categories are very large (e.g., small vs large δ ≈ 0.997).

Data & Methods

• Data
  • Source: AIDev-pop (public dataset of agentic PRs) filtered to merged/closed PRs between May–July 2025.
  • Filtered set: 25,264 agentic PRs, 2,361 repositories, 291,866 commits.
  • Repositories chosen had ≥100 stars and activity in the period.
• Participant identification
  • Combined PR-level artifacts: pr_commit_details, pr_reviews, pr_review_comments, pr_timeline.
  • Agents and bots identified/excluded via keywords (e.g., copilot, codex, claude, [bot], mergify).
  • Human participant set per PR = distinct human committers, reviewers, commenters, timeline actors.
• Team-size classification
  • Contributor counts fetched via GitHub API (distinct non-bot accounts with at least one commit to default branch).
  • Primary bins: small 1–5, medium 6–15, large 16+ (sensitivity check using 1–20 / 21–100 / 101+).
• Participation pattern taxonomy
  • Five mutually exclusive PR-level patterns: (1) 1 reviewer, no committer; (2) 1 reviewer + 1 committer (same person); (3) 1 reviewer + 1 committer (different people); (4) 1 reviewer + >1 committers; (5) >1 reviewers, no committer.
• Metrics and analysis
  • Human participation ratio = proportion of repo contributors participating in at least one agentic PR.
  • Project-level agentic PR productivity = agentic PRs per human participant over the 3-month window.
  • Statistical tests: Shapiro–Wilk (non-normality), Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn post-hoc with Holm adjustment, Cliff’s Delta for effect sizes.
• Limitations noted by authors
  • Snapshot in time (three months) — early adoption stage.
  • Focus on popular repositories (>=100 stars) and three agents — not representative of all projects/agents.
  • PR counts don’t capture PR size/complexity or quality; contributor-count proxy and API limitations may misclassify team structure.
  • Rare participation patterns excluded from main taxonomy.

Implications for AI Economics

• Concentrated early adoption and skewed productivity
  • Adoption concentrated in few repos suggests winner-take-most dynamics: economic gains from agentic tools may accrue disproportionately to projects (or firms) that build governance and review capacity early.
  • Skew in small-project activity suggests some teams can extract outsized value quickly, but most teams remain low adopters — models of diffusion should allow heavy-tail adoption.
• Human oversight as a bottleneck and value-capture constraint
  • Dominant single-human oversight model implies review capacity is a scarce input. Economic models of agentic tooling should include oversight costs (time, expertise) as a scaling friction limiting aggregate productivity gains.
  • If review/maintenance demand rises with agent use, labor demand may shift toward reviewers/maintainers rather than coders who produce raw changes — changing wage and task composition in developer labor markets.
• Heterogeneous effects by organizational scale
  • Small teams involve more of their contributors in agentic workflows (higher participation ratios), potentially accelerating per-contributor output but increasing risks (quality, bus-factor). Firms/projects of different sizes will capture different margins from agentic tools; policy and incentive design should be size-aware.
• Measurement and productivity accounting
  • PRs per participant is an imperfect productivity signal (PR size/quality vary). Economic evaluations of AI tools must incorporate quality-adjusted output metrics and account for monitoring/rework costs to avoid overestimating welfare gains.
• Market and policy consequences
  • If agentic contributions rely on specialized human oversight, barriers to entry in maintaining high-activity agentic workflows create returns to incumbency and could concentrate maintainership roles.
  • Open-source ecosystems may face changes to contributor incentives and reputational dynamics; grantors/funders and platform designers should consider supporting reviewer capacity or tooling that reduces oversight burden.
• Research and modelling suggestions
  • Incorporate oversight bottlenecks and heterogeneity in adoption into models estimating labor displacement vs. augmentation effects of agentic tools.
  • Estimate marginal productivity of an additional reviewer/maintainer under agentic workflows (complementarity/substitution).
  • Track longitudinal diffusion, quality outcomes, and cost of governance to assess net welfare and market structure impacts over time.

If you want, I can: - Generate a short slide-ready summary (3–4 bullets) for presentations. - Draft a simple economic model (supply/demand/production function) that incorporates oversight costs and heterogeneous adoption across firm/project sizes.