Review economics
quartz-scheduler/quartz
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
1
Attributed PRs
99
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#1497 fix: getJobGroupsToNeverDelete/getTriggerGroupsToNeverDelete return wrong list
2 reviews · 3.5d to merge
#1496 Fix JDBC trigger replace when trigger type changes
2 reviews · 8.4d to merge
#1493 fix #1464, incorrect SQL for qsimprop_triggers in tables_informix.sql
2 reviews · 69.2d to merge
#1465 fix #1463, BLOB trigger reads from wrong ResultSet
2 reviews · 173.1d to merge
#1505 build(deps): bump com.microsoft.sqlserver:mssql-jdbc from 13.2.1.jre11 to 13.4.0.jre11
1 reviews · 42h 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; reads 100 of 318 merged PRs — the rest have not been analyzed yet.
Detected: 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 quartz-scheduler/quartz 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 quartz-scheduler/quartz — 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