<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Defect-Rate on Revelara</title><link>https://revelara.ai/tags/defect-rate/</link><description>Recent content in Defect-Rate on Revelara</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:00:00 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://revelara.ai/tags/defect-rate/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>AI Writes More of Your Code Now. It Also Ships More Reliability Risk.</title><link>https://revelara.ai/blog/ai-code-ships-more-reliability-risk/</link><pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate><guid>https://revelara.ai/blog/ai-code-ships-more-reliability-risk/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A 2025 study of 470 pull requests found that AI-generated code shipped roughly 1.7x more issues and about 1.4x more critical defects than human-written code. Nobody serious reads that as &amp;ldquo;AI code is bad,&amp;rdquo; and I&amp;rsquo;m not arguing it either; much of what an agent writes is clean, idiomatic, and correct. The trouble starts when you sit a real workflow on top of that number: volume times defect rate, pointed at the part of the system that hurts most when it breaks.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>