Review economics
colbymchenry/codegraph
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.
≥93%
Attributed
a floor
98
Attributed PRs
2
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 5
#1497 Self-hosted telemetry on Cloudflare D1 + password-gated admin dashboard (CG-7)
0 reviews · 0h to merge
#1494 fix(mcp): blast radius follows caller chains before claiming no test coverage
0 reviews · 0h to merge
#1493 fix(python): bare class references produce references edges to classes
0 reviews · 0h to merge
#1492 fix(mcp): never serve a mis-sliced symbol body from a file that drifted from its index (#1474)
0 reviews · 0h to merge
#1490 fix: stop watchdog-killed sessions from leaking the SQLite WAL without bound (#1431)
0 reviews · 0h to merge
How this was measured
93% 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 451 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Claude Code, 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 colbymchenry/codegraph 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 colbymchenry/codegraph — 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