SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild

arXiv cs.AI / 4/23/2026

📰 NewsSignals & Early TrendsModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper introduces SWE-chat, a large-scale “living” dataset of real-world coding agent sessions collected from open-source developers, totaling 6,000 sessions, 63,000+ user prompts, and 355,000+ agent tool calls.
  • Analysis of the dataset shows bimodal coding behavior: agents generate virtually all committed code in 41% of sessions (“vibe coding”), while humans author all code in 23% of sessions.
  • Even with improving agent capabilities, performance in natural settings is limited: only 44% of agent-produced code makes it into user commits.
  • The study finds quality and safety issues, as agent-written code leads to more security vulnerabilities than human-authored code.
  • Users frequently resist or correct agent outputs—through corrections, failure reports, and interruptions—in 44% of all interaction turns, motivating a shift from curated benchmarks to evidence-based evaluation.

Abstract

AI coding agents are being adopted at scale, yet we lack empirical evidence on how people actually use them and how much of their output is useful in practice. We present SWE-chat, the first large-scale dataset of real coding agent sessions collected from open-source developers in the wild. The dataset currently contains 6,000 sessions, comprising more than 63,000 user prompts and 355,000 agent tool calls. SWE-chat is a living dataset; our collection pipeline automatically and continually discovers and processes sessions from public repositories. Leveraging SWE-chat, we provide an initial empirical characterization of real-world coding agent usage and failure modes. We find that coding patterns are bimodal: in 41% of sessions, agents author virtually all committed code ("vibe coding"), while in 23%, humans write all code themselves. Despite rapidly improving capabilities, coding agents remain inefficient in natural settings. Just 44% of all agent-produced code survives into user commits, and agent-written code introduces more security vulnerabilities than code authored by humans. Furthermore, users push back against agent outputs -- through corrections, failure reports, and interruptions -- in 44% of all turns. By capturing complete interaction traces with human vs. agent code authorship attribution, SWE-chat provides an empirical foundation for moving beyond curated benchmarks towards an evidence-based understanding of how AI agents perform in real developer workflows.