The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
READU: Inconsistency-Driven Just-in-Time Detection and Repair of README Bugs
Abstract
Repository-level documentation, such as READMEs, is often the first point of contact between users and a repository. When this documentation is incorrect, users may encounter runtime errors or waste their time debugging. We call such mistakes in repository-level documentation README bugs. Addressing README bugs is challenging because documentation mixes prose with code, its connection to the source of truth is loose, and finding a bug still leaves developers to craft a repair. This paper presents READU, an inconsistency-driven technique for just-in-time detection and repair of README bugs. The key insight behind READU is that README bugs often manifest as inconsistencies between documentation and another source of truth: either repository-internal facts, such as source code, or repository-external facts, such as external dependencies. READU applies a high-recall commit filter, runs internal and external consistency checkers in parallel, uses an alert judge to remove false positives, and automatically synthesizes documentation patches. On 6,000 recent commits from six popular repositories including Linux and Spring Boot, READU detects 244 true positives with 75% precision, while consuming less than $0.01 and less than one minute per commit, on average. Of these true positives, READU correctly repairs 217. We report 66 found README bugs, of which (so far) 44 are confirmed and 26 are fixed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Baek, D., Krampf, K., & Pradel, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2607.15780
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
