Abstract

Developers now collaborate with AI coding agents that write code and take actions on their behalf. Beyond reviewing this code, developers decide what to delegate and which agent actions to approve. Some of these actions, such as running shell commands or reading files, can have effects that never appear in the resulting code. How developers make these decisions and how much effort this requires are not well understood. To better understand this collaboration, we surveyed 203 developers who use AI coding agents. We found that careful code review does not necessarily extend to action approval: 61% of developers who carefully reviewed most or all generated code still often approved at least one type of agent action without close review. Developers aware of security or privacy incidents or concerning practices did so more often than those who were not. We also found that autonomy varied more between developers than between development activities. Although developers reported a lighter workload, supervising agents remained mentally demanding. When asked what would make them grant more autonomy, developers wanted more than reliability: more than half of their responses called for agents that are bounded, observable, or reversible. Our findings suggest that as agents take on more of the coding, the challenge shifts toward supporting the developers who supervise them.

Reference