Review of submission 52villamizar

[artifacts-reviewer]

I thank the authors for a well structured artifact submission. The authors provide the materials used in their experiment to validate the proposed approach. It would be great if the authors would consider also sharing the scripts, etc. used to do the natural language processing approach described in the paper.

There are also some minor issues that should be corrected:

• There is a typo in the Readme file: "inspections.," remove the .
• The Training_Experiment.pptx file should be translated to English.
• ~$llowUp_questionnaire_RT_A.docx should be deleted.
• In each of the task description documents, the defect type boxes appear to be misplaced with text wrapping around the sides of the box or some of the text that should be before the box appearing after the box.

I recommend a badge of Available.

[timm]

@neilernst : please concur on "Available" (or switch to "SecondReview").

IMHO, while the issues raised by @artifacts-reviewer are things the authors might care to fix (*), those fixes are optional and would not alter the "available-ness" of this artifact.

(*) BTW, I concur that making the NL scripts available would be good, that is neither here nor there about assigning a badge to this artifact.

[hrguarinv]

Dear @neilernst , @timm

Thank you so much for your contributions. We will consider all the comments. The repository will be updated tomorrow. Is it ok?

Abs

[neilernst]

Looks good to me.

[hrguarinv]

Dear @neilernst @timm

We have added to our repository the instructions to access our scripts that use NLP. I hope it's not too late for your reviews.

Abs,