Review economics
cadence-workflow/cadence
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.
≥0%
Attributed
a floor
1
Attributed PRs
99
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#8390 fix: Increase persistence test timeouts, handle leaked history branches in tests
1 reviews · 3h to merge
#8382 fix(schedules): describeSchedule should retry on query reject as well
2 reviews · 22h to merge
#8389 refactor(archiver): add archiverfx module with dependency injection
1 reviews · 2h to merge
#8388 ci: Move more integrations tests to SLOW
1 reviews · 2h to merge
#8379 fix: Stop domain migration commands from panicking during command creation
1 reviews · 38h to merge
How this was measured
0% 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 5751 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Cursor 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 cadence-workflow/cadence 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 cadence-workflow/cadence — 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