arXiv (All)
open access
Who Pays the Review Cost? Triage, Fairness, and Accountability in AI-authored Pull Requests
AI coding agents are moving from local code assistance into pull-based workflows, where generated contributions must be reviewed, explained, and maintained within existing project norms. Although recent work has begun to characterize AI-authored pull requests (AIPRs), less is known about how reviewe
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Who Pays the Review Cost? Triage, Fairness, and Accountability in AI-authored Pull Requests#1257963
- These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests#155390
- How Do Software Professionals Evaluate AI-Generated Code? (Registered Report)#361516
- Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review#1356480
- Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review#1348920
Record · ID 1248106
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive