Re: request for help: LLM-based quality assurance

On 02/06/2026 18:55, Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Anyone out here who is familiar with LLMs (or wants to get familiar with
> LLMs): How about using it not for coding, but for checking commits that
> went into gnulib master?
> 
> Since 2026-01-01, at least 17 gnulib commits contained regressions, that
> had to be fixed subsequently. We often detect regressions by code review
> or by a CI run. The problems:
>    - Not all commits gets reviewed from a different developer than the
>      committer. (Like many free software projects, Gnulib lacks good reviewers.)
>    - The CI runs possibly a week later. (We can't increase the frequency,
>      because some CI runs fail due to network problems or other noise,
>      and this noise needs to be filtered out.)
> 
> As a complement to these QA techniques, Paul Eggert suggests to use an
> LLM to analyze the commits that have been pushed into gnulib master.
> 
> This should be promising, because I read recently that LLMs outperform
> all classical static analysis tools, when it comes to analyzing source code.
> 
> I can't do this myself, because I'm already quite loaded with the existing
> QA techniques and with my work on other GNU packages.
> 
> Therefore, if you volunteer, please step up!

For reference, I see the kernel lists have:https://sashiko.dev/

which is based on Chris Mason's prompts discussed at:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1041694/

It would be cool if it supported other high profile lists like gnulib etc.

cheers,
Padraig