Review economics
TiddlyWiki/TiddlyWiki5
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.
≥1%
Attributed
a floor
1
Attributed PRs
99
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#7647 Fix transclude inefficiency
3 reviews · 26h to merge
#7648 Fixed error "Global assignment is not allowed within modules on node"
0 reviews · 43h to merge
#7619 Fix tiddler icon size
0 reviews · 22h to merge
#7554 Update to Google Analytics 4
0 reviews · 2.7d to merge
#4541 Bidirectional text improvements
0 reviews · 1162.0d 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 100 of 3768 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
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 TiddlyWiki/TiddlyWiki5 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 TiddlyWiki/TiddlyWiki5 — 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