Review economics
NervJS/taro
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.
—
Attributed
0
Attributed PRs
100
Other PRs
100
Read
The rest — the latest 5
#19459 fix(runtime): correct alias after removing event listener
1 reviews · 17h to merge
#17510 fix: 修复window端编译h5报错问题（找不到components-react/dist/index.css'）
1 reviews · 3.3d to merge
#17492 taro 4.x主包适配效能插件
6 reviews · 6.8d to merge
#16780 fix: 使用innerHTML赋值后转小程序时，a标签转view标签+img转image标签时，把width和height写入style属性
5 reviews · 12.1d to merge
#17493 taro主包3.x适配效能插件
1 reviews · 6.7d to merge
How this was measured
No commit in this window carries agent attribution, so there is no AI-authored share to read here — which is not evidence there is none; 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 3497 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: 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 NervJS/taro 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 NervJS/taro — 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