(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2607.26375 (cs)
[Submitted on 29 Jul 2026]
Title:(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding
Authors:Nishant Balepur, Connor Baumler, Valerie Chen, Eunsol Choi, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber
View a PDF of the paper titled (Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding, by Nishant Balepur and 5 other authors
View PDF
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.
| Comments: | In-progress Preprint |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2607.26375 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2607.26375v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.26375
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Nishant Balepur [view email][v1] Wed, 29 Jul 2026 01:23:04 UTC (43,006 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled (Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding, by Nishant Balepur and 5 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.