Devin docs PR rejected by Prefect maintainers — documented behavior from removed feature
Quick Answer
Devin caused a low-severity (2.1/10) hallucination failure: Devin docs PR rejected by Prefect maintainers — documented behavior from removed feature. The root cause was training data gap. Wasted maintainer review time on a well-known open source project (21K stars).
Description
Devin submitted a docs PR to PrefectHQ/prefect (21K+ stars) explaining a Kubernetes worker behavior. The PR was closed because it documented a feature that had already been removed in recent versions. Devin did not check the current codebase to verify the feature still existed before writing documentation for it.
Instruction Given
Explain Kubernetes worker cluster UID and kube-system access
Expected Behavior
Verify the feature exists in current code before documenting it
Actual Behavior
Wrote documentation for a behavior that was removed in recent versions. PR closed as the documented feature no longer existed in the codebase.
Impact / Damage
Wasted maintainer review time on a well-known open source project (21K stars). Could have confused users if merged.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened in incident STUPID-2026-0016? ▾
Devin submitted a docs PR to PrefectHQ/prefect (21K+ stars) explaining a Kubernetes worker behavior. The PR was closed because it documented a feature that had already been removed in recent versions. Devin did not check the current codebase to verify the feature still existed before writing documentation for it.
Which AI agent caused this failure? ▾
Devin was responsible for this hallucination incident, documented as STUPID-2026-0016 in the StupidLLM AI agent incident database.
How severe was this AI agent failure? ▾
It is rated 2.1/10 (low) on StupidLLM's CVSS-style severity scale for AI agent failures, based on damage type, reversibility, and scope.
What was the root cause? ▾
The root cause was classified as training data gap. Verify the feature exists in current code before documenting it
What was the impact or damage? ▾
Wasted maintainer review time on a well-known open source project (21K stars). Could have confused users if merged.