let's be clear

op doesn't provide code, so my effort stays at throwing in a claude session and providing code without ANY review

trust my numbers as much as you usually trust claude code

trust the original numbers as you usually trust no code

yes unfortunately there is no baseline

once you get past the article reporting, original study lives at https://geopjr.dev/blog/democratizing-abandonware

author provides no repo/code, but describes methodology

i run a 95% autonomous claude code session to re-run the experiment

after all, since he pulls pr/repo data for ai slop, I can just pull all data (not just ai slop) in the same time period and compare

https://github.com/rufasterisco/slopware

1

"ai slop prs/repos" starting numbers mostly match (120 to 199)

i only tested prs from github repos, bringing it down from 119 to 116

still, based on those numbers, looks like we are off by a neat 25%

could be different methodology or claude making mistakes

author mentions doing some manual cleanup

│ │ Original │ Ours │

│ Unique repos │ 120 │ 116 │

│ Maintained │ 32 (27%) │ 58 (50%) │

│ Abandoned │ 88 (73%) │ 58 (50%) │

2 given the above, this is what comparison to "baseline" looks like

as said, "baseline" here means PRs in the same period

│ │ AI Slop │ Baseline │

│ GitHub repos │ 116 │ 332 │

│ deleted / 404 │ 11.2% │ 4.8% │

│ ≥3mo stale (surviving)│ 43.7% │ 39.2% │

│ abandoned (total) │ 50.0% │ 42.2% │ │ alive │ 50.0% │ 57.8% │

post "github fetch" data lives in repo

if you want to run from zero, the repo has the scripts

it will download 600+ MB from github