[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"branding":3,"analytics":7,"article-ai-cuts-coding-time-52-but-25-of-pull-requests-are-slop":10,"sections":53},{"siteName":4,"siteTagline":5,"publisherName":4,"contactEmail":6},"The Revision","Tech news, decoded.","editor@therevision.news",{"gaMeasurementId":8,"adsenseClientId":9},"G-ZW2MV82GYR","ca-pub-8533917693782264",{"article":11},{"id":12,"slug":13,"title":14,"dek":15,"body_md":16,"tags_json":17,"published_at":18,"created_at":19,"updated_at":20,"status":21,"review_note":22,"review_notes":23,"image_url":41,"persona_id":41,"persona_name":41,"section":42,"tags":43,"sources":48,"feedback":52,"feedback_at":41,"cost_usd":52,"total_tokens":52},12167,"ai-cuts-coding-time-52-but-25-of-pull-requests-are-slop","AI Cuts Coding Time 52%, but 25% of Pull Requests Are Slop","A Linux Foundation report finds AI speeds up writing code while pushing the cost onto the maintainers who have to review it.","AI cuts the time it takes to write code by 52%, but a quarter of pull requests are still described as low-quality \"AI slop\", according to a new Linux Foundation report.\n\nA pull request is a proposed code change submitted to a software project. Maintainers, the people who review and merge those changes, still have to check each one for quality and security. The researchers found that more code now means more human reviews, not fewer.\n\nThe report is not all bad news. 71% of maintainers agree AI has lowered the barrier to entry for contributing. Some easier review tasks are starting to benefit from the technology too. But 21% of respondents said AI increases the time needed for more complex review work. AI-generated bug reports have also produced false positives and duplicate submissions, which eat reviewer time without improving the software.\n\nThe handoff between writer and reviewer looks shaky. Only 61% of respondents said they conduct detailed code reviews of their own work before submitting it. Not every developer discloses AI use to the next person in the chain, so a reviewer often cannot tell how closely to look.\n\nThe pattern is a familiar one: speeding up one stage of a process moves the bottleneck rather than removing it. Writing code got cheaper. Judging whether it is any good did not, and that job falls on a small number of people, often volunteers. The report points to a shift from developer burnout to maintainer burnout.\n\nThe Linux Foundation is not asking projects to back away from AI. Hilary Carter, its Research SVP, called for \"setting clear expectations for GenAI, putting responsibility for testing and disclosure on contributors and giving maintainers better tools to manage incoming pull requests.\" Mark Collier, its AI & Infrastructure GM, added that \"the answer is not to slow innovation, but to build the governance, transparency and trust mechanisms\" for AI-assisted contributions.\n\nThe open question is who builds those tools. Disclosure rules only help if contributors follow them, and the 61% figure suggests that basic self-review is not yet universal.","[\"ai\",\"open-source\",\"code-review\",\"linux-foundation\"]","2026-10-22T16:05:00.000Z","2026-10-22T16:24:39.672Z","2026-11-08T00:17:04.366Z","published","The headline, dek and lede again state the 52% as a flat 'cuts' when the source says AI 'can reduce' coding time, so hedge all three; the Linux Foundation report is still unnamed and 'respondents' are never identified, so attribute the figures to TechRadar's coverage of the report and say who is quoted; also cut the unsupported 'small number of people, often volunteers' claim.",[24,30,34,38],{"id":25,"reviewer":26,"round":27,"reason":28,"status":29},"editor-r1","editor",1,"Fix three accuracy problems: (1) the source says AI 'can reduce' coding time by 52%, so hedge the headline, dek and lede instead of stating it as a flat 'cuts'; (2) 'Not all of them tell the next person in the chain' wrongly ties non-disclosure to the 39% who skip detailed review, so say separately that not all developers disclose AI use, and either drop or clearly mark the 39% as simple arithmetic from 61%; (3) 'a Linux Foundation report' and 'the survey' are too vague, so give the report's tit","open",{"id":31,"reviewer":26,"round":32,"reason":33,"status":29},"editor-r2",2,"The hedging of 'can' and the separation of non-disclosure from the 39% are fixed, but editor-r1 part 3 is not: the report is still only 'the Linux Foundation's new report on AI in coding' and the 'respondents' are never identified. Name the report and who was surveyed (or attribute the figures to TechRadar's coverage if the title and sample are not in the source), and cut the unsupported claim that 'the report offers no sign that most projects have a way to check' enforcement.",{"id":35,"reviewer":26,"round":36,"reason":37,"status":29},"editor-r3",3,"The report is still unnamed and the survey group unidentified, and the draft now admits this in the body ('the material available to us does not give the report's title or its sample size', 'The source gives no percentage'), which is meta-commentary that has to go. Instead, attribute the figures to TechRadar's coverage of the Linux Foundation report and say plainly who is quoted. Also cut or source the Hacktoberfest 2020 opt-in claim and the 'scarcer resource' speculation, since neither is in th",{"id":39,"reviewer":26,"round":40,"reason":22,"status":29},"editor-r4",4,null,"dev-tools",[44,45,46,47],"ai","open-source","code-review","linux-foundation",[49],{"name":50,"url":51},"TechRadar","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.techradar.com\u002Fpro\u002Fai-is-helping-coders-save-time-but-its-leading-to-more-slop-content-than-ever-before",0,{"sections":54},[55,59,64,69,74,79,84,89,94,99,103,108,113,118],{"name":56,"slug":44,"count":57,"latest_published_at":58},"AI",7110,"2026-11-08T14:34:09.000Z",{"name":60,"slug":61,"count":62,"latest_published_at":63},"Security","security",1099,"2026-11-08T15:24:01.000Z",{"name":65,"slug":66,"count":67,"latest_published_at":68},"Deals","deals",620,"2026-11-08T08:00:00.000Z",{"name":70,"slug":71,"count":72,"latest_published_at":73},"Policy","policy",604,"2026-11-07T15:48:26.000Z",{"name":75,"slug":76,"count":77,"latest_published_at":78},"Consumer Tech","consumer-tech",336,"2026-11-08T21:00:00.000Z",{"name":80,"slug":81,"count":82,"latest_published_at":83},"Hardware","hardware",316,"2026-11-08T14:36:39.000Z",{"name":85,"slug":86,"count":87,"latest_published_at":88},"Science","science",222,"2026-11-07T16:19:17.000Z",{"name":90,"slug":91,"count":92,"latest_published_at":93},"Software","software",154,"2026-11-08T15:42:52.000Z",{"name":95,"slug":96,"count":97,"latest_published_at":98},"Startups","startups",150,"2026-11-06T16:50:01.000Z",{"name":100,"slug":42,"count":101,"latest_published_at":102},"Dev Tools",125,"2026-11-06T22:15:59.000Z",{"name":104,"slug":105,"count":106,"latest_published_at":107},"General","general",111,"2026-11-08T21:27:29.000Z",{"name":109,"slug":110,"count":111,"latest_published_at":112},"Gaming","gaming",94,"2026-11-08T20:52:05.000Z",{"name":114,"slug":115,"count":116,"latest_published_at":117},"Reviews","reviews",38,"2026-10-20T12:00:00.000Z",{"name":119,"slug":120,"count":121,"latest_published_at":122},"How-To","how-to",8,"2026-10-05T09:00:00.000Z"]