Autonomous AI agents are transforming software development and redefining how developers collaborate with AI. Prior research shows that the adoption and use of AI-powered tools differ between core and peripheral developers. However, it remains unclear how this dynamic unfolds in the emerging era of autonomous coding agents. In this paper, we present the first empirical study of 9,427 agentic PRs, examining how core and peripheral developers use, review, modify, and verify agent-generated contributions prior to acceptance. Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, we make four key contributions. First, a subset of peripheral developers use agents more often, delegating tasks evenly across bug fixing, feature addition, documentation, and testing. In contrast, core developers focus more on documentation and testing, yet their agentic PRs are frequently merged into the main/master branch. Second, core developers engage slightly more in review discussions than peripheral developers, and both groups focus on evolvability issues. Third, agentic PRs are less likely to be modified, but when they are, both groups commonly perform refactoring. Finally, peripheral developers are more likely to merge without running CI checks, whereas core developers more consistently require passing verification before acceptance. Our analysis offers a comprehensive view of how developer experience shapes integration offer insights for both peripheral and core developers on how to effectively collaborate with coding agents.

The increasing adoption of AI coding agents has increased the number of agent-generated pull requests (PRs) merged with little or no human intervention. Although such PRs promise productivity gains, their post-merge code quality remains underexplored, as prior work has largely relied on benchmarks and controlled tasks rather than large-scale post-merge analyses. To address this gap, we analyze 1,210 merged agent-generated bug-fix PRs from Python repositories in the AIDev dataset. Using SonarQube, we perform a differential analysis between base and merged commits to identify code quality issues newly introduced by PR changes. We examine issue frequency, density, severity, and rule-level prevalence across five agents. Our results show that apparent differences in raw issue counts across agents largely disappear after normalizing by code churn, indicating that higher issue counts are primarily driven by larger PRs. Across all agents, code smells dominate, particularly at critical and major severities, while bugs are less frequent but often severe. Overall, our findings show that merge success does not reliably reflect post-merge code quality, highlighting the need for systematic quality checks for agent-generated bug-fix PRs.