Review economics
DoctorWkt/acwj
Read from the 17 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
17
Other PRs
17
Read
The rest — the latest 5
#85 Better Readme
0 reviews · 50.3d to merge
#59 Fixed chapter 59 and 60 to work like 62. No more need for .n files.
0 reviews · 301.2d to merge
#70 Remove useless comments.
1 reviews · 0h to merge
#55 Nasm code generator
0 reviews · 47.2d to merge
#50 Updated all readme files to contain links to the next step
1 reviews · 5.4d 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.
“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 DoctorWkt/acwj 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 DoctorWkt/acwj — 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