The rapid adoption of large language models has led to the emergence of AI coding agents that autonomously create pull requests on GitHub. However, how these agents differ in their pull request description characteristics, and how human reviewers respond to them, remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct an empirical analysis of pull requests created by five AI coding agents using the AIDev dataset. We analyze agent differences in pull request description characteristics, including structural features, and examine human reviewer response in terms of review activity, response timing, sentiment, and merge outcomes. We find that AI coding agents exhibit distinct PR description styles, which are associated with differences in reviewer engagement, response time, and merge outcomes. We observe notable variation across agents in both reviewer interaction metrics and merge rates. These findings highlight the role of pull request presentation and reviewer interaction dynamics in human–AI collaborative software development.

As software engineering moves toward SE 3.0, AI agents are increasingly used to carry out development tasks and contribute changes to software projects. It is therefore important to understand the extent of these contributions and how human developers review and intervene, since these factors shape the risks of delegating work to AI agents. While recent studies have examined how AI agents support software development tasks (e.g., code generation, issue resolution, and PR automation), their role in documentation tasks remains underexplored–even though documentation is widely consumed and shapes how developers understand and use software.

The Log4j-Core vulnerability, known as Log4Shell, exposed significant challenges to dependency management in software ecosystems. When a critical vulnerability is disclosed, it is imperative that dependent packages quickly adopt patched versions to mitigate risks. However, delays in applying these updates can leave client systems exposed to exploitation. Previous research has primarily focused on NPM, but there is a need for similar analysis in other ecosystems, such as Maven. Leveraging the 2025 mining challenge dataset of Java dependencies, we identify factors influencing update lags and categorize them based on version classification (major, minor, patch release cycles). Results show that lags exist, but projects with higher release cycle rates tend to address severe security issues more swiftly. In addition, over half of vulnerability fixes are implemented through patch updates, highlighting the critical role of incremental changes in maintaining software security. Our findings confirm that these lags also appear in the Maven ecosystem, even when migrating away from severe threats.

Log4j has become a widely adopted logging library for Java programs due to its long history and high reliability. Its widespread use is notable not only because of its maturity but also due to the complexity and depth of its features, which have made it an essential tool for many developers. However, Log4j 1.x, which reached its end of support (deprecated), poses significant security risks and has numerous deprecated features that can be exploited by attackers. Despite this, some clients may still rely on this library. We aim to understand whether clients are still using Log4j 1.x despite its official support ending. We utilized the Mining Software Repositories 2025 challenge dataset, which provides a large and representative sample of open-source software projects. We analyzed over 10,000 log entries from the Mining Software Repositories 2025 challenge dataset using the Goblin framework to identify trends in usage rates for both Log4j 1.x and Log4j-core 2.x. Specifically, our study addressed two key issues: (1) We examined the usage rates and trends for these two libraries, highlighting any notable differences or patterns in their adoption. (2) We demonstrate that projects initiated after a deprecated library has reached the end of its support lifecycle can still maintain significant popularity. These findings highlight how deprecated are still popular, with the next step being to understand the reasoning behind these adoptions.