Review economics
discourse/discourse
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests ·
Not enough merged pull requests on both sides yet to compare how they land in review.
≥3%
Attributed
a floor
0
Attributed PRs
100
Other PRs
100
Read
The rest — the latest 5
#42319 FIX: Ensure email_verified is properly checked for true values in OAuth2 Basic
1 reviews · 0h to merge
#42313 FIX: Stop hiding workflow fields gated on an expression
2 reviews · 3h to merge
#42163 FIX: Strip `lang` from pasted spans
1 reviews · 5.2d to merge
#42311 FIX: adds user created/updated trigger to workflows
1 reviews · 3h to merge
#42317 SECURITY: Escape embed URL for HTML attribute context in footer [backport 2026.1]
1 reviews · 1h to merge
How this was measured
3% of merged commits carry agent attribution — a floor, not the share; tools that only complete code inline leave no commit trail, so the unattributed side includes AI-assisted work; 1 PR came off an agent branch with no commit attribution, so the real share runs higher; reads 100 of 36867 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex.
“Attributed” means a commit carried an agent’s signature — a co-author trailer, an agent commit identity, or an agent bot account. Tools that only complete code inline leave no such mark, so the other column is “rest”, not “human-written”. Full method and its limits
The badge reads this repo’s current report, so it follows the number.
Tell me when this moves
We re-read discourse/discourse weekly and email only when the number changes materially.
Read your own repos
This one is public. For a private repo, run the same read locally through your own GitHub credentials — nothing is installed and nothing is sent to us.
npx @ambera/review-taxWant this continuously on discourse/discourse — each pull request paired to the task it came from, and the work graded from its review loop rather than its diff size? Claim this repo in Forge
Browse every repo people have read · Read a different repository