Review economics
github/scientist
Read from the 88 most recently merged pull requests ·
Not enough merged pull requests on both sides yet to compare how they land in review.
—
Attributed
0
Attributed PRs
88
Other PRs
88
Read
The rest — the latest 5
#275 Report CPU Time alongside Wall Time
7 reviews · 6.0d to merge
#200 Bump actions/checkout from 2 to 3
0 reviews · 0h to merge
#266 CI against Ruby v3.3
0 reviews · 20h to merge
#259 Fix bug with marshalling experiments
1 reviews · 83.0d to merge
#190 Fix example code in README
2 reviews · 505.2d to merge
How this was measured
No commit in this window carries agent attribution, so there is no AI-authored share to read here — which is not evidence there is none; tools that only complete code inline leave no commit trail, so the unattributed side includes AI-assisted work.
“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 github/scientist 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 github/scientist — 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