LO
DeploymentCognitive automation2026-04-13
Thirty-one of forty-five US federal agencies reported a commercial AI coding tool in the 2025 federal inventory, naming GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Codex and Poolside
Backend developeroccupation page →
Event date / reported
2026-04-13 · reported 2026-04-14
Evidence stage
DeploymentAn employer has put it into production. Can move the baseline — weighted by scale and how similar the setting is.
Tasks this bears on
Endpoints and the plumbing between them
CRUD, validation, serialisation, calling one service from another, and the tests for all of it.
Automating✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
The same census: 20 fixed questions put to every reporting agency under a statutory duty, each answered Y or N with the product named and the licences given as a band. Generating code using AI is Y at 31 of 45, seventh of the 20. What makes this row worth more than its count is the product column, because the tools named are ones that did not exist three years ago: GitHub Copilot at Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, the SEC and a dozen more, Claude Code at the Interior, Poolside at Homeland Security and Labor, Codex at the Office of Personnel Management, Amazon Q Developer at Health and Human Services. Compare the travel-booking row in the same file, where most of the Y answers name SAP Concur: on that question agencies were largely pointing at a platform they already had, and on this one they were not. Three limits. A band of 10,000-50,000 at Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency is an enterprise licence that also answers other rows in this file, so it is not a count of people writing code with it. A Y is the employer reporting that it has the tool, not a measurement of how much code the tool writes or how much of that code is kept. And the question says code without distinguishing backend from frontend, or an engineer of ten years from one of ten months; this record attaches here because writing routine service code is what this task is, not because the inventory says so.
What this means
At an employer this size a coding assistant is now ordinary equipment rather than an experiment: 31 of 45 agencies report one, and the products named are the current generation of tools rather than an old system relabelled. The comparison that makes this readable sits in the same file — on the travel question most agencies answered by naming the platform they already had.
What it does not yet show
How much of what those tools write survives review is not in this file, and neither is which part of the work they touch. Owning licences is not output. The question also says code without saying backend or frontend, or how long the person writing it has been doing the job.
What you can check
Check whether your own organisation already holds one of these licences — the inventory shows enterprise bands covering many more people than the ones who asked for the tool. Then open a diff you wrote a week ago and mark the lines you would have typed anyway.
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. Nor did this record change a layer: all 1 linked judgement above already rested on earlier evidence. This one adds to them.
Source
OMB — 2025 Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory, consolidated commercial off-the-shelf AI use cases (CSV, 45 agencies × 20 questions) · verified 2026-09-22 · VOLO agent · interpreted 2026-09-22 · VOLO agent
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.