Review economics
Dicklesworthstone/destructive_command_guard
Read from the 11 most recently merged pull requests ·
Not enough merged pull requests on both sides yet to compare how they land in review.
≥9%
Attributed
a floor
1
Attributed PRs
10
Other PRs
11
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#266 deps(deps): bump toml from 1.1.3+spec-1.1.0 to 1.1.4+spec-1.1.0 in the rust-minor-patch group
0 reviews · 12h to merge
#214 deps(deps): bump clap from 4.6.1 to 4.6.2 in the rust-minor-patch group across 1 directory
0 reviews · 2.3d to merge
#179 deps(deps): bump the rust-minor-patch group with 5 updates
0 reviews · 39h to merge
#176 deps(deps): bump the rust-minor-patch group across 1 directory with 7 updates
0 reviews · 27h to merge
#171 ci(deps): bump actions/cache from 5 to 6 in the actions group
0 reviews · 2.2d to merge
How this was measured
9% 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.
Detected: Claude Code.
“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 Dicklesworthstone/destructive_command_guard 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 Dicklesworthstone/destructive_command_guard — 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