Review economics
katanemo/plano
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests ·
Pull requests with attributed agent authorship took only 0.8× the reviews submitted of the rest.
≥8%
Attributed
a floor
8
Attributed PRs
92
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 5
The rest — the latest 5
#1006 fixed the name of the policy object from max_overhead_pct to max_swit…
1 reviews · 3.4d to merge
#1005 Add Kimi K3 support
1 reviews · 2h to merge
#1004 fix(ci): Cargo.lock drift, edenai provider_interface, stale claude schema entry for CI failure
1 reviews · 1h to merge
#1002 feat: add Eden AI as a model provider
1 reviews · 5h to merge
#1001 fix(deps): patch serde_with, tokio-postgres, turbo, undici, next for disclosed CVEs
1 reviews · 3.3d to merge
How this was measured
8% 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; 3 PRs came off an agent branch with no commit attribution, so the real share runs higher; reads 100 of 644 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Cursor 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 katanemo/plano 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 katanemo/plano — 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