DEV Community

Mag Solutions
Mag Solutions

Posted on Originally published at magsolutionsai.com

Field report: 1246 real pull requests scanned, 0 hallucinated packages confirmed

We run a security scanner on public pull requests and publish what it finds — including what it gets wrong. This is the weekly number.

What the field looks like this week

Pull requests analysed 1246
Dependencies resolved against live PyPI and npm 1583
Distinct package names seen 1288
Hallucinated packages confirmed 0
Raw 404 candidates, before review 10
Sweeps, since 2026-09-04 5

Zero is the headline, and it is not good news for us.

A lot has been written about AI assistants inventing package names. On 1246 real pull requests we have confirmed none. The 10 candidates that came back 404 were reviewed by hand and every one was our false positive — sibling packages of a monorepo, and configuration keys read as package names.

We publish this because it partly undercuts one of our own arguments. The laboratory studies that report high hallucination rates measure what a model produces when asked to solve a task. That is a different population from what survives review and reaches a pull request, and the difference matters if you are deciding where to spend attention.

What we got wrong, and fixed

83 new correction(s) to the detector this week. Each one is pinned by a regression test built from the exact line we misread, in a real public repository, with the pull request cited.

That brings the public record to 83 corrections across 21 cited repositories. The number is counted from the test file, not written by hand — delete a test and it drops by itself.

Recent sources: ArgusLabs-ai/ARGUS#71, ClankJake/Painel-Plex#23, Luecx/OpenCAE-Studio#48, MilBia/Suchar-Overflow#316, Mu-L/prefect#712, Neonity2020/hermes-agent#601.

Check any of this yourself


Generated on 2026-09-18 from measurements taken on public repositories. Every figure above is resolved against the endpoints linked here before publishing, and re-checked weekly afterwards — if one stops being true, this article gets a dated correction at the top.

Top comments (0)