Review economics
oobabooga/textgen
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.
≥0%
Attributed
a floor
2
Attributed PRs
98
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 2
The rest — the latest 5
#7581 Set TORCH_VERSION to 2.9.0 to match xformers 0.0.33's torch pin
0 reviews · 15h to merge
#4597 Fix CPU memory limit error (issue #3763)
0 reviews · 23h to merge
#7567 Merge dev branch
1 reviews · 0h to merge
#7560 fix(win): set PYTHONUTF8 for non-ASCII locale Windows compatibility
3 reviews · 7h to merge
#7506 Add model download branch handling in download_model_wrapper
0 reviews · 40h to merge
How this was measured
0% 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 1273 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot coding 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 oobabooga/textgen 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 oobabooga/textgen — 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