[atomicnumber3]

Did you actually fix the issue, or did you fix the issue and introduce new bugs?

The problem is the asymmetry of effort. You verified you fixed your issue. The maintainers verified literally everything else (or are the ones taking the hit if they're just LGTMing it).

Sorry, I am sure your specific change was just fine. But I'm speaking generally.

How many times have I at work looked at a PR and thought "this is such a bad way to fix this I could not have come up with such a comically bad way if I tried." And naturally couldn't say this to my fine coworker whose zeal exceeded his programming skills (partly because someone else had already approved the PR after "reviewing" it...). No, I had to simply fast-follow with my own PR, which had a squashed revert of his change, with the correct fix, so that it didn't introduce race conditions into parallel test runs.

And the submitter of course has no ability to gauge whether their PR is the obvious trivial solution, or comically incorrect. Therein lies the problem.

[snovv_crash]

This is why open source projects need good architecture and high test coverage.

I'd even argue we need a new type of test coverage, something that traces back the asserts to see what parts of the code are actually constrained by the tests, sort of a differential mutation analysis.

[rixed]

This could have happened before AI agents though, but yes that's another step in that direction.