Skip to content
Preprint

READU: Inconsistency-Driven Just-in-Time Detection and Repair of README Bugs

Jul 2026 · 0 citations · 54 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

ReadU is an inconsistency-driven technique for just-in-time detection and repair of README bugs that 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.

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.

View source

Similar papers

Review Jul 2026

From Discussion to Execution: Replicating Buggy and Correct Data Science Code

Reprodgen is introduced, a large language model (LLM) based framework for automatically replicating executable buggy and patched data science programs from Q&A forum posts, and results show reliable replication with clear differences in model performance.

Ragib Shahariar Ayon, Mohammad Wardat, Shibbir Ahmed · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Improving Debugging in Verification-Aware Languages Through Automated Fault Localization: A Case Study in Dafny

This paper investigates automated fault localization for verification-aware languages by comparing two paradigms: state-based and counterexample-based localization, and shows that counterexample-based approaches substantially outperform state-based localization in this setting.

Álvaro F. Silva, Isabel Amaral, João Pascoal Faria et al. · 1 citation · ⚡1
Open access Aug 2026

Improving Bug Detection in LLM-Generated Unit Tests: Revisiting Test-Oracle Reliability Across Modern Large Language Models

This paper presents a formal mathematical model for categorizing the outcome of generated-tests into four classes, a couple of basic metrics: Bug-Revealing Rate (BRR) and Bug-Validating Rate (BVR); and two basic statistical tests to ensure that the results are rigorous.

Zeyad Farooq Lutfi · 0 citations
Jul 2026

How Do LLMs Read Bug Reports? An Empirical Study of Attention in LLMs for Automated Program Repair

The first empirical study of attention patterns in LLM-based program repair is presented, providing interpretable insights into how models process bug reports and where their attention is concentrated during repair, and indicates that stronger alignment between model attention and developer-identified key sections and...

Ramtin Ehsani, Irene Manotas, Saurabh Pujar et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Tests

SemaDiff, a novel approach for identifying semantic-preserving commits through behaviour-based analysis, is proposed, and results show that SemaDiff distinguishes accurately semantic-preserving from -- changing commits in about 76% of the cases, with a 100% precision in semantic-changing commit detection.

Maha Ayub, Michael Konstantinou, Ahmed Khanfir et al. · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Code Refinement with Repository Context: How Far are We?

A high-quality benchmark of 1,000 code refinement instances from 328 Python, Java, and JavaScript repositories that focused on one of the most challenging code refinement scenarios that strictly requires repository-level knowledge reasoning, and a straightforward method, RepoRefiner, which retrieves repository-level co...

Ke Wang, Peng Lan, Jia-Kun Liu et al. · 1 citation

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.