Review economics
onevcat/Kingfisher
Read from the 100 most recently merged pull requests ·
Pull requests with attributed agent authorship took only 0.0× the reviews submitted of the rest.
≥3%
Attributed
a floor
4
Attributed PRs
96
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 4
The rest — the latest 5
#2560 Fix option name in Low Data Mode documentation
1 reviews · 9.2d to merge
#2562 Release remaining image targets during in-flight downloads
1 round · 2 reviews · 3.3d to merge
#2561 Release the image view while its download is still in flight
1 reviews · 19h to merge
#2558 Prepare disk storage before initial cache scan
0 reviews · 14h to merge
#2559 Fix flaky network observer test and harden notification delivery
0 reviews · 1h to merge
How this was measured
3% 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; 1 PR came off an agent branch with no commit attribution, so the real share runs higher; reads 100 of 769 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: OpenAI Codex, 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 onevcat/Kingfisher 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 onevcat/Kingfisher — 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