(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding

arXiv cs.CL Papers

Summary

A study with 54 students finds that coding agents improve task completion but harm code comprehension and the ability to extend code without assistance, raising concerns about developer understanding.

arXiv:2607.26375v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents (e.g., Cursor) improve developer productivity by optimizing task completion, but shifting users from writing code to prompting and reviewing may harm their understanding, impeding oversight, learning, and communication. To probe this, we have 54 students create a website with one of two AI systems: an agent that edits user code; or a chatbot where users write code alone or adapt generic code snippets. We test understanding via comprehension questions and a task where users extend their code without agents, showing: (1) While agents aid initial task completion, they harm users' code comprehension and thus do not prepare users to extend their code; (2) Low-effort agent interaction types, like copy+paste prompts and auto-accepted edits, are linked with lower comprehension; and (3) Despite self-reported weaker understanding, users still prefer coding agents because they are quick and easy to use. While users stay in the loop for coding workflows, understanding should not be forgotten. Towards this goal, we distill our analyses into future research directions for coding agent developers: dissuading low-effort prompting, creating readable code, and promoting active engagement.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 07/30/26, 09:57 AM

# (Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26375](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26375)
[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.26375)

> Abstract:Coding agents \(e\.g\., Cursor\) improve developer productivity by optimizing task completion, but shifting users from writing code to prompting and reviewing may harm their understanding, impeding oversight, learning, and communication\. To probe this, we have 54 students create a website with one of two AI systems: an agent that edits user code; or a chatbot where users write code alone or adapt generic code snippets\. We test understanding via comprehension questions and a task where users extend their code without agents, showing: \(1\) While agents aid initial task completion, they harm users' code comprehension and thus do not prepare users to extend their code; \(2\) Low\-effort agent interaction types, like copy\+paste prompts and auto\-accepted edits, are linked with lower comprehension; and \(3\) Despite self\-reported weaker understanding, users still prefer coding agents because they are quick and easy to use\. While users stay in the loop for coding workflows, understanding should not be forgotten\. Towards this goal, we distill our analyses into future research directions for coding agent developers: dissuading low\-effort prompting, creating readable code, and promoting active engagement\.

## Submission history

From: Nishant Balepur \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/558b7f54/2607.26375)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 29 Jul 2026 01:23:04 UTC \(43,006 KB\)

Similar Articles

Coding with Agents

Reddit r/singularity

Coding with Agents explores how AI agents can assist developers in writing code, automating tasks, and improving productivity.

AI-coding agents kill team collaboration

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The article discusses how AI-powered coding agents may undermine team collaboration in software development, highlighting potential negative impacts on code quality and communication.

Are coding agents creating a new review problem?

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The article discusses how while coding agents can effectively generate code, they introduce a new bottleneck in reviewing and trusting the changes, questioning whether agents reduce or shift the review workload.