Review economics
jprichardson/node-fs-extra
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests ·
Pull requests with attributed agent authorship took only 0.9× the reviews submitted of the rest.
≥2%
Attributed
a floor
3
Attributed PRs
97
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 3
The rest — the latest 5
#1076 Throw EEXIST when ensureSymlink dest is a broken symlink
2 reviews · 23.5d to merge
#1073 Fix copy/move recursing into source through a symlinked destination ancestor
2 reviews · 14.3d to merge
#1074 docs: fix typo in README.md (seperate → separately)
1 reviews · 3.1d to merge
#1072 chore: Add Node 26 to the test matrix
0 reviews · 9.5d to merge
#1070 Mirror all utimesMillis() tests for utimesMillisSync()
1 reviews · 0h to merge
How this was measured
2% 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 284 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: GitHub Copilot coding agent, 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 jprichardson/node-fs-extra 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 jprichardson/node-fs-extra — 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