Review economics
DotNetNext/SqlSugar
Read from the 98 most recently merged pull requests ·
Not enough merged pull requests on both sides yet to compare how they land in review.
≥1%
Attributed
a floor
1
Attributed PRs
97
Other PRs
98
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#1421 fix:修改在使用分页批量插入时，DmBulkCopy中BatchSize未赋值问题
0 reviews · 45h to merge
#1423 feat: 增加达梦varchar类型长度为CHAR存储方式。
0 reviews · 2h to merge
#1416 fix:修复gbase8s数据库按时间分组查询数据性能慢的问题
0 reviews · 3.8d to merge
#1415 fix(gbase): 修复时间戳差值函数间隔类型大小写问题
0 reviews · 3.8d to merge
#1413 fix:gbase8s查询按照时间分组，然后按时间排序不正确的问题
0 reviews · 27h to merge
How this was measured
1% 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; reads 98 of 100 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: GitHub Copilot coding agent.
“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 DotNetNext/SqlSugar 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 DotNetNext/SqlSugar — 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