Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Generating GitHub Repository Descriptions: A Comparison of Manual and Automated Approaches

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2110.13283 v1 pith:7VS5NPBC submitted 2021-10-25 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords githubrepositorydescriptionsusersautomateddescriptionrepositoriescurrent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Given the vast number of repositories hosted on GitHub, project discovery and retrieval have become increasingly important for GitHub users. Repository descriptions serve as one of the first points of contact for users who are accessing a repository. However, repository owners often fail to provide a high-quality description; instead, they use vague terms, the purpose of the repository is poorly explained, or the description is omitted entirely. In this work, we examine the current practice of writing GitHub repository descriptions. Our investigation leads to the proposal of the LSP (Language, Software technology, and Purpose) template to formulate good descriptions for GitHub repositories that are clear, concise, and informative. To understand the extent to which current automated techniques can support generating repository descriptions, we compare the performance of state-of-the-art text summarization methods on this task. Finally, our user study with GitHub users reveals that automated summarization can adequately be used for default description generation for GitHub repositories, while the descriptions which follow the LSP template offer the most effective instrument for communicating with GitHub users.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLM Serving in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Frameworks, Methods, and System Designs

    cs.SE 2026-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    An empirical GitHub mining study finds vLLM is the most adopted LLM serving framework, parallel and memory optimizations dominate, and multi-framework use is rare.

Pith tools