跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 01:33 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 02:28 — 2026-11-15 02:28(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 01:33最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 01:32(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.15436

AgentTorrent: A Dataset of Context and Harness Engineering Artifacts on GitHub

Sebastian Baltes, Seyedmoein Mohsenimofidi, Levi Böhme, Vahram Nersesyan, Muhammad Auwal Abubakar, Jai Lal Lulla, Matthias Galster, Christoph Treude

原文摘要

Over the past months, developers have moved from formulating detailed prompts to engineering the context that agentic coding tools read and to configuring the underlying harnesses. For example, developers commit context files, skills, hooks, and MCP configurations to their repositories, and these files control which instructions a harness reads and which actions it can take. Developers may also commit the specs, plans, and task files that agentic coding tools and spec-driven development frameworks write for agents to implement. The AgentTorrent dataset records these files for six proprietary and open-source agentic coding tools in 10,944 engineered software projects on GitHub. It contains 62,374 configuration artifacts, the files that these artifacts import, 27,593 agentic planning documents, and more than 1.2 million commits that credit an AI tool. All heuristics used for data collection are grounded in tool documentation or derived from GitHub repositories, and we evaluate their detection accuracy with each collection. We use open-weight models to classify whether GitHub repositories host engineered software projects. Unlike most datasets, AgentTorrent links configuration artifacts, imported files, agentic planning documents, and commits that credit an AI tool within the same repositories. Configuration artifacts, planning documents, and credited commits occur together in 388 repositories. For example, our dataset allows researchers to study whether a tool is credited in commits that add instructions for that same tool and how instruction files import and contradict each other. Our data collection pipeline supports regular updates and automatically checks vendor documentation and reports unknown artifacts and agentic coding tools. The dataset and the pipeline are open-source and are archived on Zenodo.

cs.SE

版本更新 · v3arXiv:2512.05551

Automated Code Review Assignments: An Alternative Perspective of Code Ownership on GitHub

Jai Lal Lulla, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Christoph Treude

原文摘要

Code ownership is central to ensuring accountability and maintaining quality in large-scale software development. Yet, as software supply chain attacks threaten project health and quality assurance, mechanisms for assigning and enforcing responsibility have become critical. In 2017, GitHub introduced the CODEOWNERS feature, a file in the repository that names the developers responsible for specific files and automatically requests them as reviewers, to strengthen accountability and protect critical parts of the codebase. Little is known about how CODEOWNERS is adopted and practiced. We present the first large-scale empirical study of CODEOWNERS usage across over 844,000 pull requests with 1.9 million comments and over 2 million reviews. We identify 10,287 designated owners, the developers named in CODEOWNERS files, track their code review activities, and compare them with contribution-based owners, the developers who contributed at least 5% of a file's lines. Results indicate that designated owners take part in a moderate share of the pull requests that touch their files, that their collaborative behavior resembles that of contribution-based owners, and that after adoption merge time and review effort grow more slowly, or fall, relative to their pre-adoption trend. Using regression discontinuity design analysis, we further find that designated owners' review, decision (approval and merge), and authoring activity jumps upward at adoption, and that over the following year they do more review and decision work per pull request than before, whereas contribution-based owners do less review work per pull request. Our results position CODEOWNERS as a promising yet sparsely adopted mechanism for improving software governance and resilience. We discuss how projects can leverage this alternative ownership method to enhance security and accountability in open-source development.

cs.SE