Train your own on typestrict.ai | Docs | CLI | All TS models
License: CC BY 4.0 for the labels, each row's code under its repository's license | Authors: typestrict.ai

TS-PRGuard

37,048 labeled code changes for pull request review, in 11 programming languages and 9 configs. Each row is a real diff from a permissively licensed repository with one answer: does the message describe the change, how big is it, what kind of change is it, does it break compatibility, do the tests cover it, does it fix a vulnerability (and which CWE).

We built it to train the PR Guard decision models on typestrict.ai, and we publish it because the open data for these questions was either non-commercial, noisy, or missing the languages of mobile apps.

• Commercial use: every source and every repository allows it. Non-commercial and research-only sources were left out, without exception.
• Measured labels: an independent review of 300 fresh rows found 297 correct (upper 95% bound on the error of about 2.4%). Every config has its own check, listed below.
• No easy shortcuts: the hints that give the answer away were removed from the text (details in Leakage).
• Mobile included: Kotlin, Swift and Dart in every question, with a public API rule for breaking changes and a checked synthetic set for vulnerabilities.

🧭 Configs

Config	Question	Labels	Train	Test
description_match	Does the commit message describe this diff?	matches, does_not_match	5,723	682
complexity	How large and spread out is the change?	bands 0 to 4	6,056	673
change_type	What kind of change is it?	feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, build, chore, style, docs, ci	2,961	330
breaking	Does the pull request break compatibility?	breaking, not_breaking	5,337	594
breaking_api	Does the commit break the public API of a Kotlin, Swift or Dart library?	breaking, not_breaking	2,950	335
tests	Do the tests in the change cover it?	covered, not_covered, not_applicable	5,927	709
security_fix	Which vulnerability does this commit fix?	first CWE id, or unspecified	3,267	363
security_fix_mobile	Same, real fixes in Kotlin, Swift and Dart (test only)	CWE id	0	67
security_synthetic	Does this change introduce a vulnerability?	introduces, safe (537 pairs)	960	114

Config	Question	Labels	Train	Test
description_match	Does the commit message describe this diff?	matches, does_not_match	5,723	682
complexity	How large and spread out is the change?	bands 0 to 4	6,056	673
change_type	What kind of change is it?	feat, fix, refactor, perf, test, build, chore, style, docs, ci	2,961	330
breaking	Does the pull request break compatibility?	breaking, not_breaking	5,337	594
breaking_api	Does the commit break the public API of a Kotlin, Swift or Dart library?	breaking, not_breaking	2,950	335
tests	Do the tests in the change cover it?	covered, not_covered, not_applicable	5,927	709
security_fix	Which vulnerability does this commit fix?	first CWE id, or unspecified	3,267	363
security_fix_mobile	Same, real fixes in Kotlin, Swift and Dart (test only)	CWE id	0	67
security_synthetic	Does this change introduce a vulnerability?	introduces, safe (537 pairs)	960	114

In the security configs label is the first CWE and cwe holds all of them; 175 rows of security_fix are confirmed fixes whose advisory names no specific CWE (unspecified). In security_synthetic, cwe is the flaw of the pair, in both halves.

from datasets import load_dataset

ds = load_dataset("typestrict/TS-PRGuard", "tests")
row = ds["train"][0]
print(row["label"], row["language"], row["repo"])
print(row["diff"][:500])

Splits

The test split holds about 10% of the rows of each config, chosen by whole repository: no repository has rows in both splits of a config, so a model cannot pass the test by remembering a codebase. The two halves of a synthetic pair are always on the same side. security_fix_mobile is test only, and so are the 73 Kotlin, Swift and Dart rows of security_fix: real vulnerability fixes in these languages are rare, so they measure the models trained on security_synthetic instead of feeding them.

🗂️ Fields

Field	Type	Meaning
id	string	Stable row id
config	string	One of the configs above
label	string	The answer (see the table above)
language	string	Main language of the change
repo	string	owner/name on GitHub
license	string	SPDX id of the repository's license
source	string	Where the row comes from (see Sources)
ref	string	Commit SHA, pull request number, or SWE-rebench instance id
message	string	Commit message or pull request text, with the leaks removed
files	list of strings	Changed files
n_files	int	Number of changed files
diff	string	Unified diff, code files first, cut at 5,000 characters
cwe	list of strings	CWE ids (security configs only)
cve	string	CVE id when there is one (security_fix)
advisory	string	Advisory title, kept out of message (security_fix)
pair_id, version	string	The two halves of a synthetic pair: vulnerable and safe (security_synthetic)

Field	Type	Meaning
id	string	Stable row id
config	string	One of the configs above
label	string	The answer (see the table above)
language	string	Main language of the change
repo	string	owner/name on GitHub
license	string	SPDX id of the repository's license
source	string	Where the row comes from (see Sources)
ref	string	Commit SHA, pull request number, or SWE-rebench instance id
message	string	Commit message or pull request text, with the leaks removed
files	list of strings	Changed files
n_files	int	Number of changed files
diff	string	Unified diff, code files first, cut at 5,000 characters
cwe	list of strings	CWE ids (security configs only)
cve	string	CVE id when there is one (security_fix)
advisory	string	Advisory title, kept out of message (security_fix)
pair_id, version	string	The two halves of a synthetic pair: vulnerable and safe (security_synthetic)

🏗️ How it was built

1. Mining. Commits from the git histories of permissively licensed repositories (including 27 security focused Kotlin, Swift and Dart projects), CommitPack, pull requests labeled as breaking, the GitHub Advisory Database, MoreFixes, and SWE-rebench-V2.
2. Rules. Each question has deterministic rules: only repositories with a known permissive license, no generated or vendored files, the complexity band computed on the full diff before the cut, a public API comparison over the whole diff for breaking_api (default parameters and moved code do not count; apps, examples, generated code and internal packages are excluded).
3. Independent checks. Every row was checked by a decision model. change_type, security_fix, security_fix_mobile, the breaking side of breaking_api and security_synthetic also went through a second, independent LLM classifier. A row stays only when every check agrees with the label.
4. Review. Fresh samples of every config were reviewed independently after the filters, and the rules were changed until the error was low (the results are below).

tests

covered and not_covered come from execution: SWE-rebench-V2 runs the tests of each change, and a change is covered when its FAIL_TO_PASS tests are part of it. not_applicable rows are changes that do not ask for a test (docs, configuration, formatting), selected by rules and checked.

security_synthetic

Real vulnerability fixes in Kotlin, Swift and Dart are too few to train on. Each pair takes a real commit with no security relevance and adds, in the same code, one flaw from a catalog of CWEs (vulnerable) and the safe version of the same lines (safe). The rows were written by an LLM and kept only when:

• a blind check, which did not know which half it was reading, found the flaw with the right CWE in the vulnerable half and nothing in the safe half;
• a decision model confirmed that something is really at stake (a test file or unused data does not count).

CWE-208 (timing) and CWE-601 (open redirect) were removed after the final review: on the client side the generator got them wrong most of the time. The 10 CWEs left are 532, 798, 295, 22, 330, 319, 89, 922, 327 and 749. The real fixes of security_fix_mobile are the test that tells whether a model learned the flaw or the style of the generator.

📏 Label quality

Every check below was made on rows the filters had already accepted, by a reviewer that did not take part in the labeling.

Config	Check	Result
The six main questions	300 fresh rows, 50 per question	297 correct, 2 wrong, 1 unsure
breaking_api	50 fresh rows	49 correct
security_fix_mobile	50 rows	48 correct
security_synthetic	52 pairs	50 correct, 1 wrong, 1 unsure

Config	Check	Result
The six main questions	300 fresh rows, 50 per question	297 correct, 2 wrong, 1 unsure
breaking_api	50 fresh rows	49 correct
security_fix_mobile	50 rows	48 correct
security_synthetic	52 pairs	50 correct, 1 wrong, 1 unsure

The known wrong rows: a feature commit linked to a CVE, a test in a testdata/ folder outside the usual pattern, and a breaking change in an internal package of the Dart SDK.

🧹 Leakage we removed

• change_type: the conventional commit prefix (feat:, fix(api):) is removed from the message.
• breaking: every form of "break" ("breaking change", "[breaking]", "BC break", "non-breaking") and "major version" is masked as [...] in the pull request text, on both labels, so the mask itself gives nothing away.
• security_fix: the advisory text and the CVE are in their own fields, never in message.
• description_match: the negative message is a specific message from another commit of the same repository with no file in common, so the repository's vocabulary does not give the answer.
• security_synthetic: both halves come from the same commit and differ only in the changed lines; the blind check found no style that gives the half away.
• diff: code files come first and the cut is at 5,000 characters; the complexity band is computed before the cut.

📚 Sources

Source	License	Configs
Git histories of permissive repositories	Each repository's license	description_match, complexity, breaking_api, tests, security_fix_mobile, security_synthetic
bigcode/commitpack	MIT (code under each repository's license)	description_match, complexity, change_type, breaking_api
Pull requests labeled as breaking on GitHub	Each repository's license	breaking
Flutter pull requests labeled c: API break	BSD-3-Clause	breaking_api
nebius/SWE-rebench-V2	CC BY 4.0	tests
GitHub Advisory Database	CC BY 4.0	security_fix
MoreFixes	CC BY 4.0	security_fix

Source	License	Configs
Git histories of permissive repositories	Each repository's license	description_match, complexity, breaking_api, tests, security_fix_mobile, security_synthetic
bigcode/commitpack	MIT (code under each repository's license)	description_match, complexity, change_type, breaking_api
Pull requests labeled as breaking on GitHub	Each repository's license	breaking
Flutter pull requests labeled c: API break	BSD-3-Clause	breaking_api
nebius/SWE-rebench-V2	CC BY 4.0	tests
GitHub Advisory Database	CC BY 4.0	security_fix
MoreFixes	CC BY 4.0	security_fix

Repository licenses in the rows: MIT (17,854), Apache-2.0 (10,712), BSD-3-Clause (7,988), BSD-2-Clause (207), ISC (169), Unlicense (56), CC0-1.0 (31), MIT-0 (22), Zlib (4), UPL-1.0 (3), PostgreSQL (1), 0BSD (1). Every row keeps repo, ref and license, so you can trace any diff to its origin and keep its notice.

⚠️ Limitations

• Diffs are cut at 5,000 characters, so a very large change is seen only in part.
• breaking follows the maintainers' own label, which is not always applied the same way across projects.
• security_fix has fixes only: read in reverse, the same diff introduces the flaw, which is how we use it for the "introduces" side.
• description_match has no PHP and change_type has no Java or PHP: the sources had too few clean rows.
• The natural language text is in English.

🚀 Train your own on typestrict.ai

Every config here is one decision. On typestrict.ai you can train a small model on any of them, or on your own pull requests, and get it measured on examples held out from training. The trained model is a small ONNX package that runs on a CPU, in your CI or on your own servers.

curl -fsSL https://typestrict.ai/install.sh | sh && typestrict login
typestrict train --hf typestrict/TS-PRGuard:tests/train.jsonl.gz,tests/test.jsonl.gz \
  --goal "Do the tests in the change cover it?" --watch

Links

• typestrict.ai: typestrict.ai, the docs at docs.typestrict.ai
• Open source: CLI and MCP server, skills for AI assistants
• Contact: typestrict.ai/contact

Citation

@misc{typestrict2026prguard,
  author = {{typestrict.ai}},
  title  = {TS-PRGuard: labeled code changes for pull request review},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://huggingface.co/datasets/typestrict/TS-PRGuard}
}