Review economics
freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp
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.
≥1%
Attributed
a floor
1
Attributed PRs
99
Other PRs
100
Read
Attributed — the latest 1
The rest — the latest 5
#69271 feat(client): upgrade to React 19
1 reviews · 21h to merge
#69277 refactor(curriculum): correct Greeting Bot Step 15 solution
1 round · 4 reviews · 3h to merge
#69269 fix(curriculum): avoid implicit globals in Product Showcase Lab
1 round · 4 reviews · 17h to merge
#69272 fix: Fix typo in Workshop Cafe Menu Step 76
2 reviews · 2h to merge
#69256 fix(client): dc calendar showing future challenges
1 reviews · 19h to merge
How this was measured
1% 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 29007 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 freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp 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 freeCodeCamp/freeCodeCamp — 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