Review economics
abiosoft/colima
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
#1609 core: update mount type for krunkit VM to virtiofs when 9p is specified
1 round · 3 reviews · 7h to merge
#1603 core: fall back to the XDG default config dir when the variable is unset
1 reviews · 1h to merge
#1602 build(deps): bump golang.org/x/term from 0.44.0 to 0.45.0
1 reviews · 3h to merge
#1601 build(deps): bump github.com/schollz/progressbar/v3 from 3.19.0 to 3.19.1
1 reviews · 0h to merge
#1600 build(deps): bump golangci/golangci-lint-action from 9.2.1 to 9.3.0
1 reviews · 12h 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 464 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 abiosoft/colima 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 abiosoft/colima — 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