Thursday, 15 October 2026
Anawords
Research

AI coding agents add 30% more code but not more finished software, Harvard researchers find

A study of more than 700 companies found code output rose after AI agents arrived, but completed tasks did not, and code reviews took 49% longer. It has not been peer reviewed.

Anawords graphic: AI coding agents. 30% more code but not more finished software, study finds. Reported by two or more outlets.
Built by Anawords from the facts in this story. Not an official company image. Graphic: Anawords

How this story was checked

  1. ResearchedWith AI assistance · 2 sources
  2. AI source checkEach sentence matched to its source
  3. Editor approvalMayank Sahu · 14 Oct, 15:46
  4. Published14 Oct, 15:46
Read the research behind this story3 sources read · 2 used · what we could not verify · published 14 Oct, 15:36 →

In short

Harvard economists Fiona Chen and James Stratton studied about 300 million work events from more than 700 software companies. After AI coding agents arrived, lines of code per developer rose about 30%, but completed tasks did not rise significantly and time to merge code rose 49%.

Lines of code per developer rose about 30% after AI coding agents arrived.1,2
Completed tasks showed no statistically significant change.1,2
Time from submitting code to merging rose 49%.1,2

What the study found

Harvard economists Fiona Chen and James Stratton studied how AI coding agents changed work at more than 700 software companies, using about 300 million recorded work events from January 2021 to March 2026.12 The data came from Jellyfish, which sells software that tracks engineering work.12

After companies adopted AI coding agents, the researchers found:12

  • lines of code added per developer rose about 30%;
  • commits rose 20% and pull requests, or code changes sent for review, rose 23%;
  • but completed tasks and larger features in project trackers such as Jira showed no statistically significant change.

The review bottleneck

The time from submitting a code change to merging it rose 49%, roughly three and a half extra days.12 The share of changes sent back for rework nearly doubled, and review comments per change rose 35%.12

By March 2026 nearly 80% of the companies used AI code review tools, but AI wrote only a small share of review comments.12

The authors write that “productivity gains do not fully pass through to changes in software output or employment.”1 They found no fall in employment they could link to AI.1

Limits

The study has not been peer reviewed.2 It covers only Jellyfish customers who agreed to research use, so results may not apply to every company, and it looks at effects up to March 2026.2 It does not show whether AI agents produce more faulty code.2

What it means for teams

Writing code faster does not ship software faster if people still have to review it. Teams adding AI coding agents may need to plan for more review capacity, not just more output.

Fact ledger

How labels work
Reported · 3
Lines of code per developer rose about 30% after AI coding agents arrived.Source 1,2
Completed tasks showed no statistically significant change.Source 1,2
Time from submitting code to merging rose 49%.Source 1,2
Unconfirmed · 1
The study has not been peer reviewed.Source 2
Not known · 1
Whether AI agents produce more faulty code.Not announced

Questions readers ask

Do AI coding agents make developers more productive?

This study found more code was written, but not more finished tasks, because code reviews slowed down.

How big was the study?

About 300 million work events from more than 700 software companies, from January 2021 to March 2026.

Is the study peer reviewed?

Not yet. It is a working paper.

Sources

  1. 1AI Weekly: Harvard study: AI coding agents lift code 30%, shipped output flat
    Checked 14 Oct 2026
    OUTLET
  2. 2Netzwoche: Harvard study questions AI productivity promise
    Checked 14 Oct 2026
    OUTLET

Updates and corrections

v114 Oct 2026, 15:46First published. Research note published first. Sources checked by AI; approved for publication by the editor.

Written and approved by

Mayank Sahu, Founder & Editor

Mayank Sahu is an SEO expert who loves using AI and learning how it works. He started Anawords because he felt the market was missing the best AI articles: clear, sourced and honest about what is confirmed and what is only claimed. He leads the research for each story with AI tools, checks it against its sources and approves it before it goes live. Each story says how it was checked.

See a mistake, or named in this story? We reply within 24 hours. Report an error