AI coding agents generate more code, but not more software

Anyone who has even tangentially associated with computer programming knows that modern AI coding assistants and agents can be incredibly efficient at generating huge amounts of functional code. But coders making use of those tools also know better than to trust the accuracy of that code, meaning substantial effort needs to be spent reviewing any AI-generated output.

A recent study of actual coding practices across hundreds of firms finds that human code review forms a significant "bottleneck" for the overall efficiency of AI coding tools, resulting in "little evidence that firms increase software output or reduce employment" by using them. Any efficiency increased during the actual coding phase, the study authors find, is "absorbed by downstream constraints in the production process"; as "the code review process significantly increases in length, pull requests are more likely to require revisions, and reviewers leave more comments."

Cut once, measure twice

To come to these conclusions, Harvard University researchers Fiona Chen and James Stratton made use of aggregated analytics data from Jellyfish, which measures the granular output of engineering teams. That data encompasses 300 million individual "work events" (e.g., commits and pull requests) and issue management software data across more than 700,000 employees at over 700 relevant software development firms from 2021 through March of 2026.

Read full article

Comments

Beyond grep: The case for a context-rich AI coding harness

There are a lot of AI coding applications out there, and as impressive as large language models and the agents they enable have become, many of the most recent developments in AI-assisted development have been in the software that manages those models, not just the models themselves.

Earlier this summer, I spoke with the head of product for Claude Code, Anthropic's Cat Wu, about that company's approach to building that software.

Read full article

Comments