cd /news/ai-agents/we-checked-317-merged-ai-agent-prs-a… · home › topics › ai-agents › article
[ARTICLE · art-162594] src=dev.to ↗ pub= topic=ai-agents verified=true sentiment=· neutral

We checked 317 merged AI-agent PRs against the tickets they closed

A developer analyzed 317 merged pull requests from 317 organizations, each written by a coding agent (Claude Code, Devin, Copilot's coding agent or Cursor) and closing at least one issue, checking every ticket requirement against the diff. The first pass reported 44% of PRs missed something, but hand-checking showed most were false alarms after the tool graded merely mentioned issues and ignored scope changes in comments; the corrected run found roughly 15% of requirements missed or partial, with about 3 in 4 flagged findings holding up on hand-check, putting the true rate near 1 in 9. The developer advises reviewers to read the ticket alongside the diff, especially when a ticket changed after work began, and is recruiting teams to trial the Lians check tool.

by read2 min views1 publishedNov 2, 2026

Coding agents now open a lot of pull requests that say Fixes #123. I wanted to know how often the ticket is actually done when that PR merges.

So I took 317 public pull requests from 317 different organisations. Each one was written by a coding agent (Claude Code, Devin, Copilot's coding agent or Cursor), was merged, and closed at least one issue. I checked every requirement in each issue against the diff.

Most agent PRs do what the ticket asks. The ones that don't are hard to spot in review, because the reviewer reads the diff, not the ticket.

Of the 70 requirements that were missed or only partly done:

Each PR was checked by Lians check. Claude reads the issue the PR closes and its discussion, splits it into requirements, and marks each one met, partial, missed or "can't tell" from the diff.

My first pass was wrong. It graded every issue a PR so much as mentioned, including "#123 stays separate", and it ignored scope changes in the issue's comments. That run said 44% of PRs missed something. Hand-checking a sample showed most of those were false alarms. I fixed both problems and re-ran everything. On the hand-checked findings, about 3 in 4 of the new run's "missed" or "partial" calls held up. So read 15% as an upper bound, and the true rate as closer to 1 in 9.

Another 323 requirements came back "can't tell", usually because the evidence was a CI run, a sibling PR or code outside the diff. They aren't counted as gaps. The sample is public repositories found through GitHub search, so it leans toward smaller teams and open-source companies. I'm not naming any repository.

When you review an agent's PR, read the ticket as well as the diff, and look hardest at PRs whose ticket changed after the work started.

If you'd rather not do that by hand, Lians check does it on every PR. It runs in your own GitHub Actions, posts one comment listing each requirement, and re-checks the open PRs linked to a ticket when someone edits it. Here's what a check looks like on a real PR: https://github.com/ebeirne/lians-check-demo/pull/2 I'm looking for a few teams using coding agents on real repos to try it and tell me what's useful and what's noise. Full write-up and method: https://www.lians.ai/agent-prs

── more in #ai-agents 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @claude code 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
→ Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host ✓
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/we-checked-317-merge…] indexed:0 read:2min 2026-11-02 · —