Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Does Technical Debt Lead to the Rejection of Pull Requests?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1604.01450 v1 pith:4H3AZVRZ submitted 2016-04-05 cs.SE cs.SI

Does Technical Debt Lead to the Rejection of Pull Requests?

classification cs.SE cs.SI
keywords debttechnicalpullrequestsconventionprojectclassifydesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Technical Debt is a term used to classify non-optimal solutions during software development. These solutions cause several maintenance problems and hence they should be avoided or at least documented. Although there are a considered number of studies that focus on the identification of Technical Debt, we focus on the identification of Technical Debt in pull requests. Specifically, we conduct an investigation to reveal the different types of Technical Debt that can lead to the rejection of pull requests. From the analysis of 1,722 pull requests, we classify Technical Debt in seven categories namely design, documentation, test, build, project convention, performance, or security debt. Our results indicate that the most common category of Technical Debt is design with 39.34%, followed by test with 23.70% and project convention with 15.64%. We also note that the type of Technical Debt influences on the size of push request discussions, e.g., security and project convention debts instigate more discussion than the other types.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Balancing Usefulness and Naturalness: An LLM-based Curation Pipeline for Code Review Comments

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Selective LLM reformulation guided by high-quality exemplars yields cleaner, more diverse code-review datasets that improve downstream comment generation and code refinement.